Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Top Chefs Push Obama to Improve Food Policy
Alice Waters, the executive chef and owner of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., looks over the produce at a farmer's market in Washington, Sunday, Jan. 18, 2009. At the pre-inauguration fundraiser, organized along with several other dinners by food guru Waters, passed hors d'oeuvres included carrots, lettuce and cauliflower, untarnished and raw, delicious in their natural form. Waters has been pushing for seasonal, local food since the '60s, but for the first time in a long time, she sees an ally in the White House.
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON - Visiting one of his favorite Chicago restaurants in November, Barack Obama was asked by an excited waitress if he wanted the restaurant's special margarita made with the finest ingredients, straight up and shaken at the table.
"You know that's the way I roll," Obama replied jokingly.
Rick Bayless, the chef of that restaurant, Topolobampo, says Obama's comfortable demeanor at the table - slumped contentedly in his chair, clearly there to enjoy himself - bodes well for the nation's food policy. While former President George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn't often talk about what he ate, Obama dines out frequently and enjoys exploring different foods.
"He's the kind of diner who wants to taste all sorts of things," Bayless says. "What I'm hoping is that he's going to recognize that we need to do what we can in our country to encourage real food for everyone."
Phrases like "real food" and "farm-to-table" may sound like elitist jargon tossed around at upscale restaurants. But the country's top chefs, several of whom traveled to Washington for Obama's inauguration this week, hope that Obama's flair for good food will encourage people to expand their horizons when it comes to what they eat.
These chefs tout locally grown, environmentally friendly and - most importantly - nutritious food. They urge diners, even those who may never be able to afford to eat at their restaurants, to grow their own vegetables, shop at farmer's markets and pay attention to where their food comes from.
Dan Barber, chef at New York's popular Blue Hill restaurant and a frequent critic of the country's food policy, says a few small gestures from the president and first lady Michelle Obama could accomplish what many of the chefs have been working toward for years.
"I recognize that I'm an elitist guy," says Barber, who cooked a $500-a-plate meal for incoming Obama aides and other guests at a small charity fundraiser the night before the inauguration. "Increasingly raise awareness, but don't do it through chefs like me. ... My advice would be more of a symbolic nature, and to not underestimate what can be done through the White House."
Barber said good food needs more publicity, and he hopes Obama and his wife will advertise what they are eating and what they are feeding their children, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha.
Many high-end chefs like Barber believe that most food in the United States is over-processed, over-subsidized and grown with no regard to the environment, making it harder for small farms to make a profit selling more natural, nutritious food.
Barber cooks with food grown at his farm, the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture in Pocantico Hills, N.Y. At the pre-inauguration fundraiser, organized along with several other dinners by food guru Alice Waters, passed hors d'oeuvres included carrots, lettuce and cauliflower - untarnished and raw, delicious in their natural form. Sweet beets had been recently chiseled from Stone Barns' frozen ground, and hog snouts left over from slaughter were used as a garnish on a plate of Maine sea scallops.
Most of the chefs say they realize food policy and government support for larger corporate farms won't change any time soon. Congress, with Obama's support, overwhelmingly enacted a $290 billion farm bill last year that directs many subsidies to the largest agricultural players.
But Obama has already given chefs like Barber a small reason to hope. At his confirmation hearing, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made an overture to the growing number of food groups and experts who have criticized government subsidies for large corporate farms, saying he will seek to work "with those who seek programs and practices that lead to more nutritious food produced in a sustainable way."
"There's a lot of work that can be done in this area," Vilsack said after he was sworn in.
Other chefs in town for the inauguration and Waters' dinners had many suggestions to improve food policy. Daniel Boulud, the veteran New York chef of the restaurant Daniel who has cooked for at least five former presidents, said he thinks the Department of Agriculture should form an agency that exclusively oversees small farms. Lidia Bastianich, a New York-based Italian chef who has starred in several cooking shows on public television, says the government needs to encourage regulations and incentives to small farmers to give them the opportunity to compete against the "big giants."
Chef Tom Colicchio, the lead judge on the popular cable television series "Top Chef," agrees. He says foods that are genetically engineered should be labeled as such and fewer subsidies should go to corporate farms.
But despite loftier goals, Bayless, the Chicago chef, says the Obamas could make a world of difference if they just publish what they are eating every day.
"Everyone's going to want to be like the Obamas," he said.
25 Comments so far
Show Alland hog snouts left over from slaughter were used as a garnish on a plate of Maine sea scallops.
**Yeah-that's disgusting.
What a frivolous article.
The focus should be on stopping GMOS and reducing meat and dairy consumption.
"To be humane is to be cruel, vicious and unrestrained, like humans.
To be inhumane is to be compassionate, restrained, moderate, like non humans."
The article is anything but frivolous. In case you have trouble reading, here's the point, "Rick Bayless, the chef of that restaurant, Topolobampo, says Obama's comfortable demeanor at the table - slumped contentedly in his chair, clearly there to enjoy himself - bodes well for the nation's food policy. While former President George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn't often talk about what he ate, Obama dines out frequently and enjoys exploring different foods."
The other day I came across a book at my local library and the subject was about which foods you should or shouldn't eat organically. What this means is you absolutely should eat organic strawberries because they essentially absorb their environment in unlike a avocado that has a tough skin and naturally little pests. I skimmed through the pages and thought about the overall point; in which I came to my own conclusion. I already decided quite awhile ago to buy straight up organic everything because not only does that help eliminate 'foreign' toxins in my body, but it helps the environment (probably the biggest one because of animals, water, soil quality, etc.), helps the workers stay away from these toxins, my money isn't supporting the Down Jones chemical company or hopefully Monsanto either, the fact I believe these farmers raising organic quality food care more about the overall effect of their food in the world, and the more organic produce bought around the world, the cheaper it will become for everyone. There are probably more, but I see locally organic food especially during a recession or depression coming more into play.
Two points;
My hunch is that significant growth of localized organic farms would result in more sharing of food with the poor.
Is it outlandish to assume that the heavily toxified corporate farms leads to long term increase of aggressive anti-social behavior? Could this be at least part of the reason USAns are so damn violent?
Excuse me, are you actually saying white people "look like mutants" "and they have a weird kind of hormonal (?) stench"?
It appears racism is alive and well on CD.
Way to take a comment out of context.
The Best Way to Improve Food Policy is to stop subsidizing filthy rich
agracorporations to starve the poor farmers of the world to death.
Got that one right!
There is too much fake food in this country chock full of additives, hormones, dyes, genetic modifications and other unnatural things. I remember going to local farms as a kid and picking apples and strawberries--good times. Children and adults need to be reintroduced to their local farms. I'm all for natural and organic and wow it tastes and smells so much better! It shouldn't cost an arm or a leg either...Whole Foods (aka whole paycheck) is outrageously priced.
Absolutely correct. Especially the "Whole Foods" comment. I love the place, I just can't afford to get much there.
Whole Foods is just another corporate chain.
Support your local independent food stores, co-ops, CSAs, and farmers markets. You will get fresh, local, and often organic foods, help the local economy, and take pressure off the system by reducing your consumption of petrochemicals and oil.
We are not only what we eat, we are what we support.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
I'm glad the chefs are involved. They powerfully reinforce the quality of good, organic, farm food.
Chefs, likely also don't understand the issue, however, the core issue in the commodity title of the farm bill.
Here we see subsidies touted as the issue. "Many high-end chefs like Barber believe that most food in the United States is ... over-subsidized." "Congress, with Obama's support, overwhelmingly enacted a $290 billion farm bill last year that directs many subsidies to the largest agricultural players." "Vilsack made an overture to the growing number of food groups and experts who have criticized government subsidies for large corporate farms...." Yes a growing (2006-2008) number of "experts" misunderstood the issue.
The issue is below cost farm commodities, not subsidies, which have little impact on farm market prices. The low prices (collectively below cost for the five major commodities, corn, wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans, plus grain sorghum, barley and oats, 1981-2006, USDA-ERS). That's what "subsidized" with hog and poultry factory farms with below cost feeds, to the tune of $2.5+ billion each for the biggest (Smithfield hogs and Tyson poultry). That's much much bigger than anything in the above mentioned subsidy scandal. And none of the below cost gains were government paychecks. It has been hidden, even from the chefs. So Chefs and others were not on board with fighting to address the real causes. (Lack of price floors and supply management in markets that lack price responsiveness on both supply and demand sides.) Ditto for high fructose corn syrup (bigger than any "large corporate farm" subsidies, hidden beneficiaries, not government money, just government policy), transfats (ditto explanation), ethanol (ditto), the poverty underlying the food crisis, (dumping below cost grains: the U.S. lost money on exports for a quarter century on purpose to help these hidden beneficiaries build their infrastructures of concentration and giantism).
Last winter a high class food activist from California came to Iowa and asked if there was any risk at all in farming, with the corn subsidies. I'm serious. She asked if Iowa farmers had any risk at all. She had no knowledge of any of the main realities of the situation, such as where corn lost money for a quarter century, where subsidies are just compensations, and usually not as big as the losses, where farmers invested in ethanol because of political failures (so low prices, so export losses) for decades without informed urban support, where ethanol helped raise world market prices, helped end world farm export dumping, pouring wealth into farm exporting countries worldwide. High class urban activists need to do more than live in the fantasy world (ie. as set out by Bill Moyers) where farmers have this great political clout and get subsidies on top of supposedly profitable enterprises. "Commodity Growers" (Moyers term) are, as it turns out, NOT funding the lobbyists. They're NOT getting the benefits, beyond avoiding a major economic depression via the subsidy program.
Chefs should sign ON with the National Family Farm Coalition, nffc.net, for policy positions that hold up under scientific scrutiny. They should sign OFF with all of those other groups that are giving out this false paradigm about subsidies. (Search my name and "false paradigm." There remains an abundance of false information out there. I'm yet to see correct info at Common Dreams, other than the occasional piece from NFFC or Farm Aid or perhaps IATP. So I'm the one in true incredibility: are urban progressives ever going to get it right?
"a few small gestures from the president and first lady Michelle Obama could accomplish what many of the chefs have been working toward for years"
The implication is mind-boggling. A few small gestures by a certain handful of people accomplishes the same as years of work by many, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands. Concentrated power suppresses the people by making their potential appear insignificant. And yet the oval orifice is sold as inspiration. This would be hilarious if it weren't pathetic! This is against enlightenment and universalist principles. So there is a choice, a very unconventional choice available to the people: Reject concentrated power, and accept the productivity of the people, as owners/operators of production. The other choice brought decades of destruction. You want more?
We need someone like Dennis Kucinich for Surgeon General, instead of the usual pill pushing MD, who becomes a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industry.
Kucinich is a Vegan and understands the relationship between good natural food and good health, he also understands that the meat and dairy industry is not only cruel toward our fellow mammals but also very destructive to our environment.
If Obama has a shortcoming it is his lack of understanding of the preventive measures needed to attain good health, there is no reason why we cannot have nourishing food that it also very tasty, our national gluttony is destroying our environment and our health.
Meat and dairy need not be cruel. There is now humane labeling. See Humane Society of the United States, Humane Farming Association, etc. Livestock need not be confined in crates, etc.
Meat and dairy can also be important in protecting the environment and need not be destructive. With livestock, we need pastures and hay, which are better for the soil than "vegetarian" row crops like corn and soybeans. This helps on highly erodible land and in various fragile areas. They can also be good for stream banks if rotational grazing is used. Alan Savory has been working on these issues for "brittle" lands.
Many things taken to extremes are destructive. Animal welfare organizations and rotational grazing folks give balanced approaches that work in the real world.
I want to see locally grown fresh organic foods available to all people at a reasonable price. Obviously an increase in vegetarianism in rich countries would be helpful to the environment. A switch from cash crops to food crops would benefit poorer countries. "Small and Local" will help with freshness and with cutting down on emissions from transport.
This is a major social economic re-engineering project that is required here and in many regions of the word. If I were king I would call together legislators, nurses, doctors, human rights advocates, small farmers, geologists, big farmers, agribusiness, scientists, consumers, retailers, transporters to devise long term plans to improve nutrition, including in the rich countries. Then I would ignore 90% of what agribusiness says.
Meanwhile, the criteria for farm subsidies should be include a heavy weight for improving nutrition for local populations. I do not agree that dairy, fish and meat should be excluded all at once and immediately, although I agree that getting fresh produce is perhaps the biggest problem for the urban poor in the US. We can aim for less and better quality meat and dairy raised on smaller and less crowded farms. Farmers who refuse to use hormones, prophylactic antibiotics, pesticides and overcrowding of animals should get special treatment.
With the depression already here and not likely to go away, changing the qualifications for farm support to include contributions to public health can be done rather quickly, given the will.
Joe
"I want to see locally grown fresh organic foods available to all people at a reasonable price. "
Joe, two things come to mind:
1. the true cost of our corporate food is hidden behind subsidies and substandard wages we pay to the poor farmers in far flung countries that grow much of what we eat,
2. the more we buy local food, the more will be available and the costs will come down. Indeed, the costs of many organic and local foods have come down a bit.
But really, for me, #1 is the important piece. Americans don't pay the full price for anything, especially food. If we want to even approach being sustainable, we have to realize the full cost of things.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Two points. One, farm input costs are skyrocketing, threatening high input/low labor systems. Organic costs are becoming more competitive in a hurry. Iowa State University had organic corn cheaper to produce per bushel than chemical corn, (2006, maybe 2008). It isn't directly comparable, but you get the idea.
Even with subsidies, farm prices have often been below full costs, for example, overall for each commodity studied (a few years each is all that were studied) by ERS. So farmers, even with these subsidies, have subsidized consumers, not the other way around.
Oh, one more: Farm share overall is probably under 8%, though it was probably the largest sector in 1900. Output or market sector is largest, (73%) then input sector (20%) (which is usually overlooked by USDA). The latter two grew throughout the 20th century as the farm share fell. See Stewart Smith. So costs have little to do with farm prices for U.S. food, especially for grains, for corn flakes and wheat bread, much smaller than 8%.
In LDCs, without advertising, where you buy a sack of flour or rice, it's very different, of course.
Unfortunately, Vilsack is a shill for Monsanto, GMOs, and big agribusiness companies, as well as a supporter of corn ethanol-based biofuels. It seems like most of the cabinet positions are occupied by similar types.
I lived quite near Chez Panisse(don't even know how to spell it correctly)in Berkeley for many years and never ate there.
Alice Waters was (is) a local heroine and for all I know she deserves all the praise.
Thing is, for the very vast majority of citizens, they are and will remain captive of the processed food industry, while a few (mostly wealthy, but not all)folks will seek out and enjoy the locally raised and prepated stuff.
Nothing rare about that situation, pilgrims.
I totally agree with the entire concept of locally grown, organic food as a healthy way of eating as well as being kind to the environment. I am an organic gardener myself and grow all my own vegetables and herbs. However there is one fact that tends to get lost in all the somewhat romantic notion of trotting outside in the backyard and picking your dinner-the weather. I can tell you right now that anyone north of the 45th parallel is deep into winter and the reality is there are no fresh, local vegetables to be found. So we do need a certain amount of large-scale producers in more southerly climes to supply us with lettuce, spinach, peppers etc. for almost 6 months of the year. To think all large farms are irresponsible and inferior is to cut off a very valuable source of organic produce for those of us with 2 inches of snow and a temperature of 17. What we need to do is encourage responsible farming and healthy eating for everyone in every corner of this country and not get so carried away by unreal, naive notions of homegrown zuchinnis in January.