Matthew Wheeland | Civil Eats https://civileats.com/author/mwheeland/ Daily News and Commentary About the American Food System Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:16:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 USDA Announces Major Reorganization, Relocation of Employees https://civileats.com/2025/07/24/usda-announces-major-reorganization-relocation-of-employees/ https://civileats.com/2025/07/24/usda-announces-major-reorganization-relocation-of-employees/#respond Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:04:31 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=66289 July 24, 2025 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) this morning announced a significant reorganization of the agency that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said would “ensure all agencies are efficiently and effectively delivering services to our constituents.” In a five-page memorandum and an unlisted YouTube video aimed at USDA employees, Rollins laid out the details […]

The post USDA Announces Major Reorganization, Relocation of Employees appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
July 24, 2025 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) this morning announced a significant reorganization of the agency that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said would “ensure all agencies are efficiently and effectively delivering services to our constituents.”

In a five-page memorandum and an unlisted YouTube video aimed at USDA employees, Rollins laid out the details of the plan, which includes four key pillars:

  • Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with available financial resources and agricultural priorities
  • Bring USDA closer to its customers
  • Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy
  • Consolidate redundant support functions

The plan notes that the agency will move “much of” its 4,600 D.C. area employees out of the capital, eliminating what it calls “a bloated, expensive, and unsustainable organization.” Rollins said that the five hubs, where most D.C. staff will be relocated, will bring the USDA closer to its “core constituents.” Those hubs are located in:

  • Raleigh, North Carolina
  • Kansas City, Missouri
  • Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Fort Collins, Colorado
  • Salt Lake City, Utah

The move builds on Rollins’ testimony to Congress in May that the agency was close to finalizing its plan to restructure and shrink the USDA. During the first Trump administration, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue led a similar effort to reorganize and relocate USDA employees. The Biden administration worked to undo those efforts, but the reorganization of two offices within the USDA resulted in a loss of half their staff, and similar moves in the Bureau of Land Management led to an exodus of leadership during the first Trump administration.

Rollins’ message to USDA employees is below; Civil Eats will continue to report on this plan as the details take shape. (Link to this post.)

The post USDA Announces Major Reorganization, Relocation of Employees appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2025/07/24/usda-announces-major-reorganization-relocation-of-employees/feed/ 0 House Ag Committee Continues Efforts to Block Animal Welfare Rules https://civileats.com/2025/07/24/house-ag-committee-continues-efforts-to-block-animal-welfare-rules/ https://civileats.com/2025/07/24/house-ag-committee-continues-efforts-to-block-animal-welfare-rules/#respond Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:29:31 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=66272 July 24, 2025 – In a three-hour hearing Wednesday, the House Agriculture Committee brought in representatives of the animal agriculture industry to provide testimony that state-level animal welfare bills, notably California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, are harming farmers, ranchers, and consumers. Among the groups represented at the hearing were the National Pork Producers […]

The post House Ag Committee Continues Efforts to Block Animal Welfare Rules appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
July 24, 2025 – In a three-hour hearing Wednesday, the House Agriculture Committee brought in representatives of the animal agriculture industry to provide testimony that state-level animal welfare bills, notably California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, are harming farmers, ranchers, and consumers.

Among the groups represented at the hearing were the National Pork Producers Council, the Iowa Farm Bureau, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, along with agricultural economists.

The hearing represents  the latest salvo in a years-long effort to overturn animal welfare rules that were established in 2018 by Prop. 12. In advance of the hearing, House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) issued a statement claiming Prop. 12 “has wreaked havoc on America’s food supply chain, forcing chaos and cost onto producers and consumers nationwide.”

“In the name of so-called animal welfare, radical activists are using state law to impose their extreme agenda on all 50 states and our international trading partners,” he wrote, adding that Congress must now “restore order and protect the balance between states’ rights and interstate commerce.”

Republicans and witnesses repeatedly said during today’s hearing that the retail cost of some pork products has increased by  an average of 20 percent as a result of Prop. 12. These numbers are inconsistent with research, however, and, as  Civil Eats reported in May, are based on limited data: a seven-month period during which the law was being phased in.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the USDA’s Economic Research Service both report much lower real and projected increases. BLS data show about a 1 percent increase in pork prices between June 2024 and May 2025, and USDA data show pork prices rose about .6 percent between May 2024 and June 2025. Politico’s Grace Yarrow is reporting that the USDA released new data showing that Prop. 12 increased pork prices in California by nearly 19 percent compared to last year.

Democrats in both houses of Congress are speaking out in opposition to any efforts to roll back the animal welfare rules. In today’s hearing, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Illinois) said that 82 percent of small pork producers (those who raise fewer than 500 pigs) are benefiting from Prop. 12. A group of 28 Democratic and Independent senators sent a letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this month urging them to reject efforts to repeal the rules, which they say threaten not only these state-level food and farm bills, but would undermine countless state and local laws and create “an overnight regulatory vacuum.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) on Wednesday introduced the Save Our Bacon Act, which is the same language first introduced as Section 12007 in last year’s draft farm bill text.  The new bill would restrict states from passing laws on animal welfare that affect producers in other states. In a press release, Hinson’s office noted that the bill aims to “alleviate this overregulation by prohibiting state and local governments from interfering with the production of livestock in other states.”

Other groups, including animal-welfare advocacy groups and organizations representing small farmers, issued statements in opposition to today’s hearing.

“There are thousands of farmers across the country who support and depend on commonsense bans against the cruel confinement of farm animals,” said Matt Bershadker, head of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). “We encourage Congress to listen to these farmers and protect state laws like Proposition 12, which create vital market opportunities for higher-welfare farming that align with the values of the American public.”

Farmers associated with Farm Action Fund sent a letter to the House Agriculture committee in support of Prop. 12, which they said has “created a stable, premium market that allows us to sustain our farms, invest in better infrastructure and livestock care, and continue farming in an increasingly consolidated industry. . . . [We] now rely on this market as a part of our farms’ financial futures.” (Link to this post.)

The post House Ag Committee Continues Efforts to Block Animal Welfare Rules appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
https://civileats.com/2025/07/24/house-ag-committee-continues-efforts-to-block-animal-welfare-rules/feed/ 0
Nik Sharma Offers His Top Tips for Home Cooks to Fight Recipe Fatigue https://civileats.com/2024/05/13/nik-sharma-offers-his-top-tips-for-home-cooks-to-fight-recipe-fatigue/ https://civileats.com/2024/05/13/nik-sharma-offers-his-top-tips-for-home-cooks-to-fight-recipe-fatigue/#comments Mon, 13 May 2024 09:00:53 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=56219 A version of this article originally appeared in the “Revitalizing Home Cooking” issue of The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. Cookbook author Nik Sharma is no stranger to the challenges of recipe and cooking fatigue: His latest cookbook, Veg-Table, is focused on putting […]

The post Nik Sharma Offers His Top Tips for Home Cooks to Fight Recipe Fatigue appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
A version of this article originally appeared in the “Revitalizing Home Cooking” issue of The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox.

Whether you’re a chef, cookbook author, recipe developer, or home cook, the act of cooking— not to mention preparing to cook and cleaning up after—can sometimes be a slog. Whether you’re trying to cook with the seasons and facing yet another market basket of leeks and spinach, or you’ve hit a rut with recipes, cooking can become exhausting.

Cookbook author Nik Sharma is no stranger to the challenges of recipe and cooking fatigue: His latest cookbook, Veg-Table, is focused on putting produce at the center of the menu, which can require more prep and clean-up, two of the more time-consuming aspects of cooking.

Recognizing that, we spoke to Sharma recently about his approach to keeping cooking interesting, engaging, and joyful. Here are some of his favorite tips.

Seek out entertainment while you’re cooking.

There are non-cooking things you can do during cooking. When I cook, for example, I’m either listening to my favorite soundtrack, or I’m watching a show—something on design, or something silly like the “Real Housewives.” But it has to be something unrelated to what I’m doing at the moment, so I don’t get fatigued and bored and tired and fed up.

Add meaning with non-food elements.

One of the things recipe writers do a lot is to get inspiration from other people or countries. So when you travel or go to a restaurant, try to remember things that you enjoyed. I learned this from an author Diana Henry, who is known for romanticizing meals beautifully. She loves to collect tablecloths and cute little wine glasses, and they’re all mismatched, but there’s a story behind everything and it brings back memories during a meal. It doesn’t have to be always the dish that creates the memory for you.

Roast chicken with citrus and peaches. (Photo courtesy of Nik Sharma)

Roast chicken with citrus and peaches. (Photo courtesy of Nik Sharma)

Cook the same foods different ways.

Although there’s a lot to be said about the joys of cooking seasonally, there are some downsides too. I did a CSA [community-supported agriculture] when I lived in D.C., and they would send us lettuce all the time. I once found a recipe for a French lettuce soup just to try something new, and it was the most disgusting thing. Even in California, you can get the same things all the time in season. It does get boring.

This is where there are easier fixes: Suppose you’re making potatoes two times a week. Maybe you change the method of cooking—one day you roast them, the other time you boil them. Or maybe you use the same technique, but then you can switch the spice plan. Spices are the easiest way to revamp a meal, to make something familiar more exciting—you roast potatoes with salt and pepper one time, then in harissa the next time, and maybe the third time use garam masala.

There’s no shame in shortcuts.

I tell people, if they want to make it easier, if the budget allows, go and buy pre-prepared, pre-cut ingredients, it’s OK. It’s a little more expensive. But if you can, do it if it makes your life easier. There’s no shame in taking shortcuts.

One of the pressures, especially in countries where we’re privileged enough to get access to ingredients all the time, is that there is a shame around buying canned foods and frozen foods. There are definitely good quality brands that are already prepared, so you don’t have to soak your beans and stuff like that.

Frozen foods can actually be nutritionally better than fresh foods because the vitamin content often lasts longer. If you buy a whole vegetable, depending on the time it takes to get from the farm to the market, the nutritional quality keeps decreasing as soon as it’s pulled off from the plant. With frozen vegetables and fruit, it’s flash-packed, so the nutrients don’t degrade as fast.

Simplify your prep.

If you’re actually going to sit and cut everything, it’s OK to prep the night before. If you want to spend time on a few hours on a Saturday or Sunday prepping for the week, it’s totally fine to prep and freeze. And if you have a food processor, those chop up pretty nicely—it’s easy to use tools like those.

I know professional chefs and recipe developers always encourage people to do the mise en place, like, get all your ingredients ready in separate bowls. And people don’t like to do this because then they have to wash more dishes—and the mental notion of washing a lot of dishes is just off-putting. Just have the ingredients in front of you at the table in the kitchen and work with them.

“No one’s coming to your house to judge you. As long as it tastes good, it’s fine.”

It’s not about looks.

Instagram, Pinterest, and all these things are all responsible for this desire for everything to look perfect—and of course I’m partly responsible for it too, because I always have to take a good photograph or video to sell the product.

But you also have to keep it real. For me it’s a professional challenge. So I just tell people directly, don’t be ashamed of how it looks. Because first of all, no one’s coming to your house to judge you. As long as it tastes good, it’s fine.

Kosher salt is silly.

Another thing home cooks hear all the time is, “You have to use kosher salt—Morton or Diamond.” It’s nonsense, because that’s not going to make them a better cook. There’s nothing magical about it. And it’s infuriating to me because, first of all, the price of those salts are actually quite high compared to just regular sea salt.

Some chefs will say, “Oh, I can grab kosher salt better.” You can also grab fine sea salt better, unless your fingers are made of, like, stainless steel, right? And some chefs will say, ‘It dissolves really fast.’ But I did a time experiment side by side and there was no difference. Telling people to use something so specific, when it’s not going to make them a good or bad cook—it’s silly.

Don’t go overboard so you can actually enjoy the meal.

We do a lot of this to ourselves—we’re trying to replicate what’s online or what’s in a restaurant, and you don’t need that at home. You can just have a lovely meal, entertain your guests properly. When you’re entertaining or feeding your family, don’t go overboard, because at the end of the day, you actually want to enjoy the meal and spend time with them.

Accept help, including from kids.

If you can, get help from family members or friends. Maybe not even meal prep, but putting things away, cleaning up, setting the table—take it, take it. You don’t have to do it all yourself, especially if you have kids. One of the things that I enjoyed as a child was always being asked to be part of what I call transformational steps in cooking.

My grandmother would do this thing whenever she was making sweets for Christmas. In India, it’s a huge process—there’s a month-long thing for Christmas and Easter where the Christian community does sweets. My family would start a month ahead of time. And I would be involved always at the end stage where we were shaping sweets; as a child that was always fun. Or when my grandmother was making something savory, again, that involves assembling.

In Veg-Table, there’s a recipe for her cabbage rolls; that’s a dish that I learned from her because it was so much fun to do, stuffing things and rolling leaves. And I call those transformational recipes because, as a child, you start to get fascinated by your ingredients. They’re changing in front of you. You’re actually involved at the end and, as a child, you can say, “I made that.”

Not everything needs to be made at home.

Just this morning I saw a video on how to make mayonnaise at home. Why would you make it at home when you can buy it? You make this giant batch and then you have to eat all that mayo within a certain time period. Condiments—and spices especially—are the easiest way to make a meal more interesting. Just buy them from the store; it’ll probably actually taste better.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post Nik Sharma Offers His Top Tips for Home Cooks to Fight Recipe Fatigue appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2024/05/13/nik-sharma-offers-his-top-tips-for-home-cooks-to-fight-recipe-fatigue/feed/ 1 How the Politics of School Food Shape What Kids Eat https://civileats.com/2022/09/26/politics-school-food-weaver-hightower-unpacking-school-lunch/ Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:00:44 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=48474 An excerpt of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only email newsletter. Become a member today to get the next issue in your inbox. As a self-identified progressive, Weaver-Hightower makes a focused effort to describe in detail the various efforts taken up by conservatives to block improvements to school food, and details how […]

The post How the Politics of School Food Shape What Kids Eat appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
An excerpt of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only email newsletter. Become a member today to get the next issue in your inbox.

In his new book, Unpacking School Lunch: Understanding the Hidden Politics of School Food, Marcus Weaver-Hightower explores how the politics of school food shape the reality on the ground—from the kinds of meals served to children to where they’re prepared, and how much they cost. Weaver-Hightower, a professor of education at Virginia Tech, has spent the last 15 years researching school food politics and policies in the U.S., England, Australia, and beyond.

As a self-identified progressive, Weaver-Hightower makes a focused effort to describe in detail the various efforts taken up by conservatives to block improvements to school food, and details how addressing those efforts could lead toward a truly progressive vision for healthy school meals for all.

Civil Eats recently spoke with Weaver-Hightower about what the new school year has brought for school meals, pizza as a vegetable, and how more of us can advocate for better school food.

Can you tell us about the genesis of the book? It sounds like you’ve been working on it for a very long time.

I’ve always thought a lot about food; I was born into a family that had lots of farming in their background, so food was important and cooking was always a ritual. And then school food was anxiety-producing, because there were all those social distinctions that happened in the cafeteria. And I always felt like I was not amongst the “elite eaters,” if you will. My parents didn’t pack me lunch, and if they did, I didn’t have the “right kind” of peanut butter and stuff like that. So, I was always aware of it in my own life.

When I went back for my Ph.D. in education, I studied social inequality. And it occurred to me that so much of my experience in school was related to food—those were some of the best memories, but also some of the worst. So, while I did my dissertation work on boys’ education issues—masculinity, politics, and schools—school food was always on my mind, and I really started down the track in 2007.

Your children started going to school while you were researching this book. How did that change your interest in and understanding of the issues?

In the first chapter of the book, I talk about my son [who was born in 2007] going to school, and that was a great entrée for me into how those politics work on an individual basis. Before that, I was really focused on cafeterias and public policymakers, but when it gets down to the level of actual kids going to actual schools, it becomes much more complicated.

“It’s a fine line to walk between having a deep respect for the possibilities [of school meals], but also understanding that there are some deeply troubling aspects, too. How do we advocate for something that has so many problems?”

I have two kids, and one or the other is always in the hate portion of their love-hate relationship with school food. So, it becomes ethically complex for me to look at them and say, “I really deeply believe in school food and the possibilities that it has for social good and educational good,” and then have them come home and say, “Lunch was super gross today, can I please pack my lunch tomorrow?”

In some ways, seeing my kids go through school, it makes me a little bit more understanding of people who do have real, serious problems with quality and presentation and the environment in which kids are eating. It’s a fine line to walk between having a deep respect for the possibilities, but also an understanding that there are some deeply troubling aspects, too. How do we advocate for something that has so many problems, but also offers such possibility?

Your book is narrowly focused on the politics of school food and how those politics inform or explain the policies that school foods operate under, rather than also exploring nutrition, or health, or environment. What are the benefits of that approach?

There are a couple of different benefits. One is, I have a vested interest in thinking about educational politics writ large. And because I’m an education professor I can’t talk as well to many of those kinds of issues. But I can see the ways in which there’s an almost seamless throughline from school food, to school politics, to broader politics.

Most people think that government can’t do anything right—because it’s government food, and they’re making these decisions for us. But it’s only a small slice of government that is saying, “We need to spend as little as possible, only give these meals to kids who absolutely can’t afford it otherwise, and get by on the bare minimums of nutrition.”

“It’s important for folks who are interested in making the system better to understand these politics so they can participate in them, write their congressman, vote, or however they want to make a difference.”

That same small group [of conservatives] also fights really hard to make sure that the definitions we have of food, or water, or vegetables come to mean something in industries’ interest much more so than in kids’ interest.

It’s important for folks who are interested in making the system better to understand these politics so they can participate in them, write their congressman, vote, or however they want to make a difference. There are lots of progressive examples one can look to for inspiration; I include a few of those at the end of the book. For me, the main thing is using this lens as a springboard toward understanding how these policies come to be.

In the book you discuss the idea of ketchup as a vegetable, and pizza as a vegetable, but can you spell that out a bit more?

There are a number of them; for instance, water is something that was fought over for a while. The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) [passed in 2010] required water to be available for kids, and then people fought over well, what does that mean? Does it have to be just water coming out of the tap? Or can it be those, like, water-based beverages that have extra electrolytes and stuff—what counts as water?

When the Department of Agriculture was making the rules to implement the HHFKA, one of the things that they wanted to say was that two tablespoons of pizza sauce would no longer count as a vegetable serving. What followed was this legalistic word-gamesmanship, as well as industry lobbying, in order to allow pizza sauce to be considered a vegetable. In the end, the lobbyists got their way.

The result was great for the [companies] putting pizzas into schools, because it is a staple of the menu. And because it would cause a lot of disruptions for cafeterias, you saw groups like the School Nutrition Association coming out against the pizza as a vegetable change, because it would disrupt the normal pattern of school feeding, which includes pizzas, enhanced corndogs, reformulated French fries, and other foods that don’t doesn’t necessarily fit our colloquial definition, or the dictionary definition even, of what we would call food. It gets loosened up to suit the manufacturers, instead.

We often hear from school food advocates that small changes are better than nothing. But then over the last two and a half years we’ve seen a sea change in attitudes and practice toward universal free meals during the pandemic. What do you think about the results of an incremental approach?

In some ways, the structure of how we reauthorize school food every five years, rather than write a new bill each time, helps that process along. I understand the amount of time and effort it would take to fundamentally rethink policies, but at the same time, when you have gigantic health problems that are caused in large part by our food habits, something has to be done.

There are a couple of things that I think are good about incrementalist change; partly because the scale of school food is so massive—billions of dollars and millions of workers and a supply chain that we’ve all come to know is very complicated. So, those incremental changes help school food providers be able to cope with making changes to the program; it would be really disruptive for them to have to do a 180.

“Incrementalism has us stuck in a cycle of technical changes. The HHFKA was in a lot of ways revolutionary, but some of the ways that it made changes were susceptible to conservative backsliding.”

England [underwent] a pretty big sea change, with lots of rule changes, after Jamie Oliver did his school dinners series in 2005. It made a huge difference, but it was really disruptive for a lot of nutritional staff. They weren’t getting enough training or enough staff to be able to making these from-scratch dinners. And they were also in this precarious situation because Jamie Oliver had so convinced people that school food was terrible, so there was also this sudden decrease in people wanting to eat it.

Those kinds of moments can be very difficult to manage. At the same time though, incrementalism has us stuck in a cycle of technical changes. The HHFKA was in a lot of ways revolutionary, but some of the ways that it made changes were susceptible to conservative backsliding. As soon as Trump came into office, he was out to get the changes [that had been made] to school food. Part of that was the personal antipathy that many conservatives have toward Michelle Obama, and she had become the face of those changes. And because some of those changes were so incremental, the nutrition specialists and the people working in cafeterias, who needed them to be incremental, also said, “You know, we can’t really make these changes. And they were able to get their congressmen, people at the USDA, and people at the School Nutrition Association to push back because even the incremental changes are hard.

I personally think if you just rip the band-aid off and deal with the consequences, then folks will adapt eventually. And that’s exactly what has happened with the HHFKA; cafeterias have been adapting, and they’ve been meeting standards. It hasn’t happened quickly, but it has come to pass that school meals are much more healthy than they were before.

Was the pandemic that kind of rip-the-band-aid off approach?

I just wrote a piece that was published in the History News Network that covers that exactly: We missed a huge opportunity to renew school meals as free.

When big changes had to be made, we didn’t have time to think about the nuances, but we found our way toward getting meals out to kids for free. We were able to pay for it—we spent a little more than we might normally have, sure, but there are just so many more reasons to keep it going. If there is any silver lining to the pandemic, it’s that. We uncovered so many problems in our social safety net that people didn’t realize were in such bad shape.

“When big changes had to be made, we didn’t have time to think about the nuances, but we found our way toward getting meals out to kids for free.”

We have had two “blissful” years of not having to think about lunch shaming, paperwork, and schools and districts struggling with debt. And now a lot of that reprieve is gone, partly because of long-standing conservative antipathy to school lunches as only a form of welfare.

During this latest attempt to reauthorize universal free lunches, the House approved a bill that would have eliminated reduced-price meals [and provided more students with free meals instead], but [Kentucky Republican Senator] Rand Paul threatened to filibuster the bill unless the reduced-price meal was reinstated.

You’ve said a little about the changes Jamie Oliver prompted in England. What else did you learn about how England has managed their school food programs?

They have tracked, for many years, the same kind of politics over food that we have here. When Reagan was trying to dismantle school food in the U.S. in the ‘80s, Margaret Thatcher was doing the same exact thing in England, and actually succeeded. So England almost gives us a chance to see what would have happened here? But their turning it around is, I think, a really good model of how to take a gigantic food system and make some really drastic changes to it.

I visited a couple of different cafeterias in England, and they didn’t have freezers. They had one little one, like you’d have in your home, but everything else got prepared fresh. It did cause some difficulties for them, as I said earlier, but they were able to adapt and figure out how to do it better. But the warning is that even really good reforms don’t always last, especially if, as in their case, conservative politicians decide that they don’t want to pay for these programs, or if they have an antipathy toward or an ideological problem with spending tax resources on food. They can quite quickly roll back big changes. So that’s something that we need to be concerned about [in the U.S.].

What do you hope readers will take away from reading this book?

I hope they get an appreciation for the ways in which you can speak to people on their own political or ideological level. The middle of the book is focused on detailing the conservative positions and arguments around school food. I [hope readers] develop new ways of addressing their concerns, and countering misinformation. For instance, I think about how to reframe school lunches as not just about welfare, but there are many big, complicated questions that need to be answered.

I want readers to ask: what is it we actually want? Because it can’t be that we want 200 grams less sodium. I’m hoping to encourage people to think bigger and to think more disruptively, and less incrementally about what progressive school food means.

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

The post How the Politics of School Food Shape What Kids Eat appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> The Inequity of Hunger: An Interview with Priya Fielding-Singh https://civileats.com/2021/11/24/the-inequity-of-hunger-an-interview-with-priya-fielding-singh/ Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:00:36 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=44398 In How the Other Half Eats: The Untold Story of Food and Inequality in America, sociologist Priya Fielding-Singh gives the debates around food access some much-needed grounding. Fielding-Singh began working on the book in 2013 as part of her Ph.D. research at Stanford University, where she conducted in-depth interviews with 75 Bay Area families that […]

The post The Inequity of Hunger: An Interview with Priya Fielding-Singh appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

Often missing from the public debate over diets, hunger, food security, and food access is a real, on-the-ground understanding of how people make the food decisions they do—whether those decisions are driven by health concerns, financial concerns, emotional needs, or other factors.

In How the Other Half Eats: The Untold Story of Food and Inequality in America, sociologist Priya Fielding-Singh gives the debates around food access some much-needed grounding.

Fielding-Singh began working on the book in 2013 as part of her Ph.D. research at Stanford University, where she conducted in-depth interviews with 75 Bay Area families that spanned a broad range of races, family types, socioeconomic status, and more.

“I would open my interviews by explaining that I wasn’t a nutritionist, I was a sociologist, and I was interested in how people thought about, felt about, and made choices about food,” Fielding-Singh explained. “The actual contents of families’ diets was not what mattered to me—what mattered to me was understanding those things honestly and accurately.”

From there, Fielding-Singh arranged to spend long stretches of time with four families—two families in lower-income households, one middle-level income family, and one high-income family—over the course of five months. (The four families all have teenaged children; two were led by single mothers, and two were heterosexual married couples, though the mothers were the primary food decision-makers.)

Her observation times “weren’t planned at all around food,” she said. “They were intended to just observe daily life, to be a part of any number of things that families were doing—and food played a big role, but I would never just show up for a supermarket trip or a mealtime.”

What she found, and what gives How the Other Half Eats its strength, is the complexity and nuanced decision-making that goes into feeding children—and parents. As she writes toward the end of the book:

Moms showed me that access to healthy food is about more than geography and finances. [It] means being able to live a life with resources and supports that make a nutritious diet the default, not the exception. [It] means not having to fight, to struggle, to eat the food you want and deserve. It is one thing to be able to find and afford a head of cauliflower. But it is another to want to buy that cauliflower, to choose to spend one’s money on that cauliflower (at the expense of other purchases), to have the time and tradition to cook that cauliflower, and to possess the patience to weather one’s child’s complaints and pleas for macaroni and cheese and soldier on to feed that cauliflower to one’s child. Only a handful of parents I met had all of those things. The vast majority didn’t.

Civil Eats recently spoke with Priya Fielding-Singh about the complexities of food access and hunger, and how to address them.

Although this book is centered on food, it also necessarily focuses on class, race, geography, and economics. What did you learn from about how central food and diets were to families?

The book is in many ways about how inequality manifests in food choices, and in constraints and challenges, around feeding. But it’s a book about a much broader set of hardships and societal inequities. And food is really the lens through which to examine those.

Almost every parent I spent time with really did care about their child eating a healthy diet. There’s often this misconception when we talk about diet disparities, that low-income parents either don’t care or don’t know what’s healthy for their children. And I just can’t overstate how false that is.

Pretty much every mother I spoke with told me they didn’t really want their child drinking soda, they knew that Cheetos were not healthy, they knew that fruits and vegetables were the best choices. As much as there were fine-grained differences in how mothers thought about what makes a healthy meal or a healthy diet, there was more consensus and more commonality than anything. One thing I hope comes through in the book is that it’s not easy for anyone. There’s so much information, judgment, and confusion. There are time constraints; and, especially for low-income families, financial constraints.

Everybody you observed felt like they were doing the best they could, and yet they also all still felt like they were falling short of whatever ideal they had. What does that say about what we tell parents about food?

I use this very sociological concept called the ideology of intensive mothering, which is this unreasonably high and unattainable standard of motherhood in the U.S. We think of good moms as self-sacrificing, child-oriented, and engaging in labor-intensive, expert-guided parenting. It’s an extremely exclusionary ideal—only the highest-income mothers can even come close to it. In a society where there are no structural supports for caregiving, where mothers and families have very little assistance, intensive mothering sets mothers up to constantly feel like they’re falling short.

Food is a great lens to look at that through, because nourishing children has always been a core part of motherhood—it’s the way mothers prove their devotion and commitment to their children. And increasingly, with fears of rising rates of childhood obesity and headlines about heavy metals in baby foods, it’s also an extremely anxiety-provoking and high-stakes parenting endeavor.

All mothers are looking for ways to feel better about the fact that they’re falling short of this ideal. But the resources they have at their disposal are really different—for low-income mothers, it’s impossible to imagine being able to consistently buy their kids organic food or make their babies purée every day, so they have to look for other ways to feed their kids that make them feel like good moms. Being able to buy kids the food they like, the food that brings a smile to their faces, that is how low-income moms derive a sense of worth and feel like they’re doing right by their kids. Making sure that kids feel loved and cared for takes precedence over assuring that they have the most nutritious diet.

Can you speak about the double standards that we have as a society around parenting at different income levels?

Absolutely. For higher-income moms, for white moms, there is sort of a benefit of the doubt given. If they’re letting their kids eat, for example, a bag of Doritos, it’s because they’re not overly meticulous, they’re being laid-back, they’re being cool. There are these positive associations with [giving children treats]. But when low-income moms do it, the assumption is that they’re negligent, careless, or ignorant about what their kids should be eating; that they’re unable to control their children. It’s amazing how the exact same action, even the exact same food, can generate such a wildly different societal judgment.

One thing that stuck out with me from reading the book was this idea of downscaling and upscaling as an act that parents do. Could you just describe what that means for parents at different income or socioeconomic levels?

I found that parents across the income spectrum engaged in emotion work to feel better about how their kids were eating and what they saw as their children’s dietary shortcomings and their own shortcomings as caregivers. But they use really different strategies fundamentally shaped by their socioeconomic position.

So low-income mothers used downscaling, a term coined by the sociologist Marian Cooper, which describes trying to push down the feelings of guilt of anxiety in order to bring forth feelings of contentment, and to basically cope with really difficult circumstances.

With feeding, downscaling involves doing things like, if your kids aren’t eating a nutritious meal, shifting the focus away from the nutrition of the meal, and focusing instead on the fact that you’re eating that meal together, or that your kid isn’t picky—any number of things. It can also involve shifting the focus away from food entirely, to where the way that you evaluate yourself as a caregiver has very little to do with what your child is eating and more to do with the fact that you’re able to spend time with them, that you’re able to take them to the water park on the weekends, that you are there for them when they need you.

For higher-income parents, they engaged in what’s called upscaling. Basically, it’s the opposite of downscaling—it’s where you escalate the guilt and anxiety with the hope that you will compel yourself to do better on your kid’s behalf. But what I found was that for higher-income moms, they never actually reached the bar that they were trying to get to.

I told the story of Janae, who’s a Black, high-income mom with three daughters who wanted to feed her kids a nutritious, healthy diet and always felt like she was falling short. She changed her job to be able to cook more meals at home, but then she would feel guilty that that still wasn’t enough, and that she needed to be cooking every night of the week. Every time she got closer to the standards she had set for herself, she would raise the standard even more. This is how intensive mothering works.

Toward the end of the book, you focus on some of the systemic inequities parents face and the policy decisions that make those inequities hard to escape. How are you feeling now about the state of the policy prescriptions that you detail in the book’s final chapter?

I feel excited about movement around universal school meals and ensuring that all children have [free] breakfast and lunch five days a week. But at the same time, there has been a rollback of some of the nutrition standards in those meals. And we need to get those back on track, because it’s not enough just to combat hunger. We also need to ensure nutrition security and ensure that kids are getting healthy meals; culturally tailored meals; meals that they enjoy, that fill them up, that teach them about food, and that set them up for educational success. As we emerge from the grasp of COVID and back to in-person schooling, it’s really important that we get those nutrition standards back on track.

Similarly, we’ve seen in other countries that COVID has sparked a discussion about the role of diet and diet-related disease in severe viral outcomes. We haven’t really seen that in the U.S. One part of that discussion might involve doing something like regulating the marketing of junk food and beverages, especially to children. In the U.S., where Big Food and Beverage have so much power, there’s not a lot of regulation, and that is really unfair to families and to children. There’s so much progress to be made on the marketing front still, and there’s been very little change from the pandemic.

As far as broader policies, the fact that we’re talking about paid leave, that we’ve increased child tax credits [as part of the Biden administration’s COVID response], that we’re discussing childcare assistance and housing assistance—these are remarkable policies that would actually begin to tackle the root causes of hunger, poverty, and diet disparities. The fact that we can have these conversations is really exciting.

All of these policies are actually deeply intertwined with food. If we can elevate families out of poverty and materially improve families’ conditions, we actually have a real shot at improving their diets and reducing inequities.

What is the one takeaway you want to make sure people get from this book?

Food access exists in relation to a constellation of other factors and hardships that families experience that in some ways matter even more. We need to be having a broader conversation about what drives nutritional inequality and what it’s going to take to reduce it.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post The Inequity of Hunger: An Interview with Priya Fielding-Singh appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> In the Food System and Beyond, Plastics Are the Problem https://civileats.com/2021/11/17/in-the-food-system-and-beyond-plastics-are-the-problem/ Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:00:01 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=44353 Editor’s note: A version of this interview appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only monthly newsletter. Become a member today to get early and exclusive access to our in-depth reporting on food and the environment. The Story of Plastic is an Emmy Award-winning documentary first released in 2019 and currently streaming online through the Discovery […]

The post In the Food System and Beyond, Plastics Are the Problem appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
Editor’s note: A version of this interview appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only monthly newsletter. Become a member today to get early and exclusive access to our in-depth reporting on food and the environment.

Plastics, as we all know, are central to our food system and to our economy. Each year more plastics get made from raw materials, and each year more enter the environment or end up in landfills. The EPA estimates that in 2018 (the most recent year for which data is available), only about 14 percent of plastic was recycled, which means that the other 86 percent either becomes litter, landfill, or burned for energy—and needs to be replaced with new virgin plastics next year.

The Story of Plastic is an Emmy Award-winning documentary first released in 2019 and currently streaming online through the Discovery Network. Created by the Story of Stuff Project, the documentary shines an uncomfortable but much-needed light on the impacts of the plastic industry on people and ecosystems, and our reliance on plastics in the food system and elsewhere.

“Ninety percent of the dialogue is about 10 percent of problem,” explains Stiv Wilson, the co-director of the Peak Plastic Foundation and the creator and producer of the documentary. “But most of the coverage focuses on downstream problems of packaging and waste,” such as the communities around plastic production facilities (such as “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana).”

 

“It’s our goal to use story to elevate people working at the front line, tell the stories from a perspective of lived experience of harm, and create intersections and bridges for people from different walks of life to be a part of the overall narrative shift, so we can transform power and engage with this issue more systematically.”

Civil Eats spoke with Wilson earlier this month to learn more about the size and shape of the plastic problem, how the pandemic reshaped the plastic landscape, and how food fits into the puzzle.

Food is a part of the problem—you’ve mentioned that consumer goods packaging represents about 50 percent of all plastic packaging—but that’s not all. Can you say more about that?

One of the issues with plastic pollution is that, living in a privileged, rich country, you may hear about the problem writ large, but if you are going to the grocery store, and you’re buying things [that are almost inevitably in plastic packaging], and you dispose of them—whether in the garbage or even in recycling—you wouldn’t think you’re part of the problem. You’re not exporting waste personally, you’re not littering. Most consumers aren’t aware that people literally died [from the toxic chemicals emitted into their neighborhoods from plastic-producing factories] so they could have that potato chip bag.

Our goal is to shift the narrative so people understand the full life cycle of plastics and make more informed choices. Ultimately, we want to move away from this material, since we see plastic as the vehicle of globalization and capitalistic growth.

In terms of food and beverage packaging specifically, how much of the global plastic industry does that represent?

Packaging in all consumer goods is approaching 50 percent. That’s the sector of growth and a lot of that is food packaging. That’s how Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Nestlé, and other conglomerates are selling their products in the developing world and opening markets: By selling smaller amounts that are on a lower price point [but require as much if not more packaging per ounce].

So now, all kinds of products—from soy sauce to shampoo to coffee—are all coming in these [multi-layer] single-serve packages that are fused materials, which makes them nearly impossible to recycle from an economic standpoint; it costs more to actually process them than the end product is worth.

And the economics don’t work because the infrastructure doesn’t exist to do it at scale, or to do it cost-effectively?

The infrastructure for [some] recycling doesn’t exist, because it’s not profitable to do it. Recycling was never meant to address a waste stream this large. And for 40 years, the plastics industry has said the solution to plastic pollution is recycling. But if recycling was actually cutting down on the amount of plastic being made, they wouldn’t be promoting it—they full well know recycling isn’t cutting into their profits from virgin plastics.

There is a massive pivot by the oil and gas industry underway, shifting from fossil fuels for energy and transportation to plastics. And I fear that climate advocacy is not tracking this bait and switch.

On a related but tangential note, how has the pandemic affected plastic use?

The industry has for years promoted this message of sterility—that “if it’s in plastic, it’s clean.” And leaving aside for a moment the fact that that’s not anywhere close to true, I do think that they preyed on a lot of people’s fears by saying that plastic was a way to save them from COVID. And so there was a rollback of a lot of [plastics-reduction] policies. And I saw across my entire movement how so much was undone in a second, after it took years to build and get passed into policy.

How long will it take to rebound from the COVID plastics boom?

Well actually, the last legislative season across this country was probably the most prolific in terms of plastic regulation. It seems like [2020 represented] a swing and a miss from the plastics industry. Although there are implications for a lot of global economies, in the U.S. we haven’t fully swallowed that pill, we went back to regulating plastics pretty quickly. We saw a concept called extended producer responsibility, or EPR, which essentially means that companies are now going to be on the hook in certain states for end of life management costs. It’s no longer enough for a company to say “I made a recyclable piece of packaging, now it’s up to you, the taxpayer, to manage it and make sure it’s recycled.” Maine recently passed a substantial bill that is going to make industry pay for waste management.

We also saw more regulation on problematic materials like Styrofoam, and some legislatures passed bills that said you can’t put the recycling symbol on something if it’s not going to be recycled; it has to actually get recycled if you’re going to put the arrows on it.

Essentially, what we saw in the legislative season in many places was shifting the narrative around whose responsibility it is to manage this stuff and dispelling a lot of myths about what happens to it.

How do you see these policies affecting individuals as they shop for food?

Some of it won’t be readily in plain sight for the average consumer, it just means that when you dispose of this stuff that the company that made it will have to pay for systems to manage it. And in some ways that’s a double-edged sword, right?

Because industry now has a talking point that says, “We don’t have to change what we produce, because we’re managing it.” Manufacturers and industry are going to fight this every step of the way, because policy is only as good as its implementation, and so the fight is now going to shift to stopping the implementation.

For the consumer, I think you’re going to start seeing more packaging solutions on the shelves for companies that can get access to venture capital and scale more sustainable systems for delivery. I think you’re gonna see more reuse systems, more subscription systems, more milkman kind of systems.

Have you seen any examples of successful adoption of those kinds of systems in the marketplace?

Absolutely. There’s been a scalability challenge, but some companies are really doing a good job as early adopters.

The New Orleans Saints football team, their stadium is moving to a reuse model, or a truly biodegradable model. And that’s the kind of market scale that we need to get to for that stuff to be competitive. That kind of project also normalizes a different system. If you’re a fan, and you’re going to see a football game, and you want to drink a beer and eat a hot dog, what you really don’t want in that moment is to get a lecture about your choices hurting turtles or being unsustainable. But if your beer just comes in a cup that can be reused, or is truly biodegradable, then you don’t really have to change anything. Those kind of systems aren’t [saying] that you’ve done something wrong; they’re normalizing a new way.

Are there any other notable examples of success, or signs of progress?

Certainly, in the younger generation–some of the most breathtaking and amazing organizing against plastic disposables is being done at the college campus level in the U.S., where you’re building an institutional system for managing waste and generating less of it. It’s being adopted at scale by student bodies. I find that incredibly heartening because you’re not just changing the waste footprint of an institution, you’re also normalizing it for a student populace that’s going to go out and expect that level of efficiency in the larger world.

One of the most amazing organizations out there is the Post Landfill Action Network—they’re doing this at scale, intersectionally: It’s not just white privileged kids who care about turtles, it’s environmental justice communities who care about people’s lived experiences, and they’re all working on this, together.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The trailer for The Story of Plastic is below; and the full documentary streams on YouTube, courtesy of the Discovery Network.

The post In the Food System and Beyond, Plastics Are the Problem appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> How ‘Kid Food’ Became Fraught for Parents https://civileats.com/2019/10/31/how-kid-food-became-fraught-for-parents/ https://civileats.com/2019/10/31/how-kid-food-became-fraught-for-parents/#comments Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:00:11 +0000 http://civileats.com/?p=33560 Parents today face some significantly steeper challenges to feeding their children well than they did just a generation ago. The food and beverage industries not only offer a huge array of processed foods, but they also spend millions on advertising to promote those foods as suitable for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and between-meal snacks. Combine that […]

The post How ‘Kid Food’ Became Fraught for Parents appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
Parents today face some significantly steeper challenges to feeding their children well than they did just a generation ago. The food and beverage industries not only offer a huge array of processed foods, but they also spend millions on advertising to promote those foods as suitable for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and between-meal snacks. Combine that with the widely accepted idea that kids only eat comfort foods—pizza, grilled cheese, chicken nuggets—and you start to understand why many parents feel so overwhelmed by the prospect of putting healthy food on the table.

A new book aims to help parents—and all would-be healthy eaters—overcome this overwhelm. In Kid Food: The Challenge of Feeding Children in a Highly Processed World, published tomorrow by Oxford University Press, writer, food advocate, and parent Bettina Elias Siegel explores how we reached the current, stressful state of feeding our kids, and what parents can do to fix it.

Siegel has long chronicled the ongoing effort to improve school food for Civil Eats and other outlets, and has published her own blog, The Lunch Tray, since 2010. Founded when her two children were in elementary school, the site tackles kid food in all its forms, and looks closely at the influence that the food industry, policymakers, and parents can have on what kids eat.

Civil Eats recently spoke with Siegel about the surprising history of children’s menus at restaurants, what it would take to end lunch shaming, and what parents can do to help make kid food safe and healthy for all.

You’ve been researching and writing about these issues for almost a decade now; what has changed in that time?

The improvements in school food have been an enormous advance. In terms of the broader world of children outside the school setting, we’ve seen the processed food industry at least nominally responsive to consumer demand for more transparency and cleaner labels. Is the overall nutritional quality of the food vastly improved? I’m not sure I could say that, but you can see that [the food industry is] at least aware of parents’ concerns.

In terms of the classroom setting, part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was a strengthening of wellness policies, and those regulations only went into effect last school year. So that may lead to some changes outside of what’s in the cafeteria, like the candy rewards that get handed out or what’s served at classroom parties. It’s very much up to individual districts, but at least there’s now a mechanism that could improve the classroom environment as well.

What kinds of concerns or questions have you heard from readers over the last decade?

One of the reasons why I wanted to write the book is precisely because I’m hearing many of the same complaints today that I was hearing in 2010. I think parents feel very beaten down. Whether they have a higher level of nutrition education or less, parents all generally understand what a healthy diet looks like. Parents are incredibly well-intentioned and want to see their children eat well. And I think they feel very thwarted by so many different forces in our society and so many different aspects of their child’s daily life. Those sorts of concerns have remained consistent.

I’d imagine many parents have the same sort of entry into this arena: They try to offer healthy food from the start, but then run into external forces trying to undo that work.

Right, like you’re doing the very best you can at home, and it starts to feel like it’s all for naught. Because if your kid comes home stuffed with cupcakes from piano lessons or whatever, there goes your healthy dinner.

I also found myself making nutritional compromises at home that I never thought I would make, and that’s why I wanted to explore picky eating and where that comes from in the book. The way kids are advertised to … can also erode parents’ best intentions. You start to feel like your kids are making demands and you get tired of saying no all the time, or you see them eating very selectively and you just after a while get frustrated—you think, “Well, I’m just not going to serve that healthy thing anymore,” and it’s just easier to give in, in unexpected ways. So, I wanted to look at both feeding kids inside your home and then what’s going on outside your home.

In the course of researching this book, how did your understanding of these issues change?

I found several surprises. Before I did my research [on the history of the children’s menu], I would have assumed that when kids went to restaurants in the 1920s and ‘30s, they probably ate whatever was that era’s equivalent of not-so-healthy but very delicious food, because going out was a treat, and nutritional concerns go out the window.

But I found that, at that time, too, parents were especially concerned about their children’s diets and felt that the food in restaurants was not suitable for them and they needed a sort of certified, special, healthy oasis [of a menu] to feel comfortable taking their kids out to restaurants. The way we look at kids’ food today, we seem to have completely thrown up our hands. And kids’ food is like the least healthy, most fun, sugary, brightly colored, fun-shaped stuff.

Also, the research I did on children’s formation of taste preferences was interesting. Hindsight is 20-20, and who knows how this knowledge would have changed things, but I do look at ways I might have fed my children differently had I known some of that research as a new mom.

Can you give some examples?

There’s this idea that kids are particularly receptive to new flavors at a certain period in infancy, and the research seems to show that you can actually maximize that by introducing lots of new flavors in a rapid sequence. And had I known that as a parent, I absolutely would have more consciously exposed my kids to new flavors instead of doing it in the kind of haphazard—and even maybe overly cautious—way our pediatrician advised.

I understand why we all fall back on these processed foods, even the ones that come from Whole Foods. But I do worry that the more of that stuff we give our kids when their tastes are just forming, there’s more potential locking-in of those preferences. And it’s something I would have thought a little harder about before handing out the Veggie Booty and the bunnies.

Your children are teenagers now. Is there hope—were you able to salvage their eating preferences from those early, missed opportunities?

Yes, I am here to say there is hope. I remember when I was writing about my son in particular—who was very resistant to eating vegetables for a very long time—I fell into all kinds of traps. Like, I was pressuring him in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I remember parents on The Lunch Tray telling me, “Listen, you have to take the long view.” And I heard that, but it’s really hard to take the long view when you’re worried on a regular basis about whether they’re getting enough healthy food.

But I can attest now at the other end of the spectrum, that kids do grow at their own pace, particularly when you stop pressuring them. And now I look at my son, and while broccoli may never be his favorite food, he is much more open to exploration and does have vegetables that he really likes. And that seemed completely out of reach when he was in grade school.

I think all you can do is model [healthy eating] as much as you can. One thing I wish I had been told as a younger parent is just zip your lip at mealtime. Don’t praise anybody for eating anything and don’t note if they’re not eating it. Just put down the food and then ask, “How was your day at school?” I wish I had done that because, at least in our family, I was exerting pressure when I shouldn’t have, despite my better instincts.

Where do you see the biggest need for improvement?

I think we have to start with the fact that you’ve got these two incredibly well-funded, powerful industries—the food and beverage industries—spending close to $2 billion a year to target our children with the marketing for almost uniformly unhealthy foods and drinks. And it really does shape their thoughts about food, their understanding of food, their desire for certain foods. So, I realize that that’s a big-ticket item, but I think we have to start there.

We can also move way down the scale, and there are all kinds of opportunities for individual activism if parents want to take on that role. And those things can make a difference. I highlight in the book various parents who have stepped up, like Sally Kuzemchak, a fellow blogger who has made it her goal to improve the food served in her son’s sports leagues and has come up with all kinds of resources for parents who want to do the same thing. That makes a difference, because kids are in practice multiple times a week and they’re being offered this food, and it can really change things if you raise the level of the food and drink offered there.

I was struck by the way you detail the approaches other countries are taking to these issues.

In the U.S., we’re all so accustomed to this, particularly the aggressive marketing to our children, that I think we just take it for granted. It’s just the status quo. And it’s very eye-opening to realize that in Chile right now, they can’t put Tony the Tiger on a cereal box [because of government regulations on advertising to children]. And, truly, the only reason why we can’t get it done is because of the powerful influence of [the food and beverage] industries. I certainly wouldn’t think it’s the will of parents to have cartoon characters luring their children to the least healthy foods.

What are some of the most promising solutions or approaches to improving kids’ food? Any success stories you want to share?

There are some restaurants, for example, that are making an effort to improve the offerings for children, which is a hugely important place to start, since I think we now spend more of our money on food outside the home than groceries inside the home. And there are some chains that have made improvements, like the Silver Diner [on the East Coast], which has dropped unhealthy sides and beverages from their children’s menu and they actually increased their revenue. And Panera Bread does what I think so many parents wish other restaurants would do, which is let customers buy a half portion of any entrée.

And then, at the end of the book, I lay out four broad areas where I wish we could move forward. For example, in terms of school food, while I acknowledge that we’ve seen tremendous improvements in terms of the nutritional quality of school meals, I still talk about various areas where we could seek further improvements. Like, can we get a cap on added sugar in school meals?

Another ripe area for improvement is to guarantee kids more time to eat [at school], which we know affects the nutritional quality of the meals they actually ingest. And providing districts with more funding so that they could invest in infrastructure and the labor for scratch cooking is hugely important. Another is this notion of universal [free] school meals, which would put an end to lunch shaming and give children more access to food.

Beyond that, I am a fervent advocate for banning the advertising of foods and drinks to children, which is only benefiting corporations and does children harm. And then what can we do to get children themselves more invested in healthy eating and to give them the tools to navigate this food environment? One thing many people talk about, which I completely support, is more cooking skills. Bringing back home economics would be tremendously helpful. As are campaigns that “inoculate” children against food and beverage marketing. Teaching kids basic nutrition education and food literacy, all of that is part of the puzzle.

Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ilhan Omar recently introduced a comprehensive school food reform bill that would include a universal school meals program and an end to lunch shaming, while also significantly raising the amount of money schools get reimbursed for the meals they serve.

I’m so incredibly encouraged to see presidential candidates talking about universal school meals. Senator Elizabeth Warren just did so a few days ago, as well as Bernie Sanders. Julián Castro has mentioned it and I think maybe others as well. That’s new, and I do think that’s a product of all of this public attention on lunch shaming, which has existed for such a long time, but has to burst into people’s consciousness in the last few years.

To my mind, school lunch should just be an integral part of the day, that’s paid for, that kids can partake of, and we should not be highlighting socioeconomic differences the way that we do in the current system. And so whether it’s lunch shaming or the fact that test scores seem to improve where universal meals are offered—that [study] just came out last week. Whatever the rationale, I love that we’re getting more public discussion of that issue.

What do you hope readers take away after reading your book?

I hope that parents feel validated; because I think they often feel really beaten down and frustrated and maybe even a little bit alone in their concerns about these issues. And then I hope I’ve left them with a sense of empowerment, that if they want, they can be advocates in their child’s daily life.

And then, and this is the loftiest goal of the book, I hope that I am awakening some political activism, some greater political will to take these issues on collectively, through our elected representatives—so that we actually enact more sweeping policies that really move the needle for children’s health. Like, just reading about how in Chile they don’t advertise junk food to kids—I hope that makes parents think, “Wait a minute! I don’t want my kid marketed to that way anymore, either. Why can’t I have that in this country?” Busy parents might be annoyed by the nagging in the grocery store, but they’re not connecting all the dots. And my hope is that this book will help them do that.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Author photo by Jessica Laviage.

The post How ‘Kid Food’ Became Fraught for Parents appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
https://civileats.com/2019/10/31/how-kid-food-became-fraught-for-parents/feed/ 2
New Book Offers a Dash of Hope—and Dose of Reality—for Young Farmers https://civileats.com/2017/03/07/new-book-offers-a-dash-of-hope-and-dose-of-reality-for-young-farmers/ https://civileats.com/2017/03/07/new-book-offers-a-dash-of-hope-and-dose-of-reality-for-young-farmers/#comments Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:00:16 +0000 http://civileats.com/?p=26414 It’s a tough time to be a farmer. Consider the high cost of buying farmland, the systemic economic and ecological problems resulting from decades of industrial agriculture, and the uncertainty and disaster approaching due to our changing climate. But really, it’s always been tough to be a farmer. They face long days of hard labor, […]

The post New Book Offers a Dash of Hope—and Dose of Reality—for Young Farmers appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
It’s a tough time to be a farmer. Consider the high cost of buying farmland, the systemic economic and ecological problems resulting from decades of industrial agriculture, and the uncertainty and disaster approaching due to our changing climate.

But really, it’s always been tough to be a farmer. They face long days of hard labor, minimal profit, unreliable and ever-changing markets, and a general lack of understanding and respect for their work from the very people they feed. It’s no wonder that young people aren’t racing to take up the charge. The average U.S. farmer was 58 years old in the last agricultural census, and that age continues to rise.

Thankfully, the siren song of agriculture continues to call to young people and draw them to farm in cities, suburbs, and rural regions across the country. It is to these young farmers, and to the many who want to farm but haven’t yet taken the leap, that Letters to a Young Farmer speaks.

The book, published today by the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, a nonprofit farm and education center in New York, draws on the collective wisdom of three dozen of the most respected figures in agriculture today—farmers, chefs, writers, philosophers, and activists—to answer a single question: “What would you say to young people just starting out to farm?”

The answers range from personal stories to practical advice, including wise reflections on how to grow healthy food in ways that treat land, animals, and people with respect.

Civil Eats spoke with some of the book’s contributors in hopes of furthering the conversation. We asked them to elaborate on the advice they passed along in their letters and to reflect on both the challenges and opportunities young people entering agriculture encounter. In addition to sharing deep concerns, they spoke about their hopes for the future.

Joel Salatin

Joel SalatinJoel Salatin co-owns Polyface Farm with his family in Swoope, Virginia. He is the author of 10 books and a frequent conference speaker, and advocates aggressively for food-choice freedom and local food systems.

What do you see as the challenges most important for the new generation of farmers to overcome?

The number one challenge is their own sense of entitlement. Just because you love earthworms and want to produce good food does not mean the world owes you a living. You have to make it work. You have to do whatever it takes—live in a yurt, have a johnny house, live in a cave, get up at four o’clock, forget the coffee, live with secondhand clothes. You’ve got to do what it takes to make it happen.

Looking out at the rising generation of farmers, what are you most encouraged by?

I’m most encouraged by their ecological understanding. We know so much more now about everything from the soil to the human microbiome. These are dots that are being connected that are just fantastic. For the first time in a long time, we truly do add gravitas to the fact that we can’t just be eating Hot Pockets and Velveeta cheese all the time, and that bodes well for consumers, for people of all stripes, to invest in land care. And nobody takes care of land like ecologically minded high-integrity farmers.

One of the major themes in your letter is the idea of pursuing diversity and complex relationships. Why is that important?

One of the reasons farms have gone to mono-speciation and segmentation and segregation is forced simplicity. But as we know, ecology is not simplistic; it’s complex. You can either have simplicity and externalized cost, which are simple in the short term, or you can have complexity and not have externalized costs, which takes a long-term view.

I don’t want to make it sound like if you go to diversity, it’s going to be simpler or better, but in the holistic scheme of things, it is simpler and better. You don’t have to have a refrigerator full of pharmaceuticals; you don’t have to take the pesticide exam and be certified as chemical applicators; you don’t have to have a door on the farm with padlocks on it so nobody will get in there and eat something. When you embrace ecological and financial diversity on your farm, in my view, you’re embracing actually a simpler life than trying to fight against nature every day by being simplistic.

What do young farmers need to hear but aren’t hearing on a regular basis?

Probably the element of time. We live in an instant gratification time—far worse than historically. I run into aspiring young farmers who say, “I gave it a go for six months, and it didn’t work” or “I gave it a go for one year and it didn’t work.” You’ve got to give it a go for 10 years. And you can’t Google experience.

Everyone like me, all the people in this wonderful book, we all desperately want to inspire and encourage young people, but looking at all of our stories, there’s a time element in there, and it’s a long time. For us [at Polyface Farm], it took about five years until we looked at each other and said, “You know what? We’re going to make a living here.” That’s a long time to actually wonder if it’s going to work.

This time element, especially for Millennials, is extremely important, because everything is “I want it now.” Everything is instant.

Let’s say every new farmer takes the advice in your letter. How would farming be different than it is now?

We wouldn’t have a single concentrated feeding operation. I think that would be really good. Secondly, we would have revitalized small communities, small economic communities, and we would see an absolute revival of small business and personal responsibility among consumers, as all these farmers assaulted them with the responsibility to join us as essentially extensions of our hands and feet in the landscape. They might not actually be planting the carrot, but they decide what kind of carrot is going to be planted and how it’s going to be cared for by what kind of carrots they buy. It would be completely transformative.

Karen Washington

Karen WashingtonKaren Washington is an activist and farmer. She is co-owner of Rise & Root Farm in Orange County, New York, and cofounder of Black Urban Growers (BUGS) in the Bronx.

You’ve spoken to us before about how encouraged you are by young peoples’ attitudes toward healthy food and farming. What most encourages you about young farmers today?

I’m trying to encourage as many people of color as possible to go into farming because that’s not the case now. In 2012, New York State was home to more than 35,000 white farmers and 70 Black farmers. From a farming perspective, it’s challenging. But when you talk about food in general, especially among low-income neighborhoods and residents, I see a positive change—people are starting to be more aware. People are starting to fight for and see change in terms of community gardens popping up and urban farms and farmers’ markets that are in the hands of neighborhoods and people of color.

Your letter draws a strong connection between farming and work for social justice–arduous, not particularly glamorous, long-lasting, and vitally important.

I wanted to open my heart in the letter, specifically speaking to farmers of color. For so long, the message has been around slavery. Even in the ag world, the father of modern farming, George Washington Carver, is never mentioned, although people talk about the Michael Pollans, the Mark Bittmans.

I want to remind people of color, especially Black people, that growing food is in our DNA. And slavery is part of our history, but it doesn’t define who we are as a people. We have the same right to feel that we can grow food as anyone else.

Listen to what your ancestors have done in terms of growing food. You stand on the shoulders of greatness; you stand on the shoulders of people who knew how to farm from infancy. Though you may hear negative stories, follow your heart, and follow in the steps of people who came before you, because farming and growing food is so powerful. Never give up that dream.

Wes Jackson

Wes JacksonWes Jackson is President Emeritus of The Land Institute in Salina Kansas and the author of many books, including New Roots for Agriculture, Nature as Measure, and Consulting the Genius of the Place: An Ecological Approach to a New Agriculture. He was a Pew Conservation Scholar in 1990, a MacArthur Fellow in 1992, and received the Right Livelihood Award in 2000.

What do you see as the most important challenges for the new generation of farmers to overcome?

Most young famers are going to have to be stuck with a small [farm]. They’re not going to be sitting on 3,000 acres of corn and soybeans. For most of them, that small acreage will be devoted primarily to the vegetables and the fruits. The challenge is to make a living in a world where the industrialization of agriculture makes it very hard for farmers growing vegetables and the fruits—and [trying] to keep the prices low—to compete. The land is too expensive, and the equipment is too expensive, and given the fluctuation in the markets, that’s a high-risk adventure.

Mostly, those ideas [of small-scale farms] are alive on the east coast, the west coast, and major cities in between—not out in the landscape where there aren’t many people. We have an awful time keeping our little market going here in Salina, Kansas. We started that way back in the early 80s, and they’re constantly struggling. It’s in a large sense subsidized by people that want to keep the idea of healthy food going.

What words of wisdom would you give a young farmer looking to pursue ecological agriculture amidst these challenges?

He or she better know where their market is, or they’re going to be hauling [their food]—as some of the people here in Kansas do—to the famers’ market every weekend, from 50 miles away. That means gasoline, that means time. Or, they could be in some nice place—like Amherst, Massachusetts, let’s say. And there you have this progressive community, and you’ve got smart students, smart professor types, and they’ll buy the product from these little farmers. But those [successful small-scale farmers] are anomalies. And they didn’t come out here [to Salina] to do it, and I don’t blame them. They need to know where they are, what’s the market. And they’ve got to have some specialty niche. This is not to discourage them, but they need to have their eyes open and be watchful of potential.

In your letter, you explain the history and tradition of the Green Revolution to young farmers. Why do you believe that’s vital for someone starting out to know?

In the so-called third world, where the Green Revolution had great increases in fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation wells, there were social consequences that were pretty severe. We took it to India, and at the time, India wasn’t burning much in the way of fossil fuel—and India was being fed, by the way … We introduced the industrial model into all of those systems, and that industrial model has further implications back here at home. This is the context in which the young farmer finds him or herself.

Nancy Vail

Nancy Vail and Jered LawsonNancy Vail and Jered Lawson are cofounders and codirectors of Pie Ranch, a food and farming education center on the San Mateo coast in California that cultivates a healthy and just food system from seed to table through food education, farmer training, and regional partnerships. Nancy and Jered live on the farm with their two children, Lucas and Rosa.

What about the new generation of young farmers encourages you most?

Embarking on the path of farming is an act of hope in a time when there’s so much that we could despair about. It’s not an easy choice, and so to make that choice means that people are thinking beyond themselves and thinking about the earth and the communities they’ll impact.

What would you say to young people who want to start farming?

Regardless of income level or privilege of any sort, there are ways to engage, whether it’s in a community garden or growing herbs on your porch—just jump in wherever it makes sense. That will hopefully lead you into the next step on the path.

What do you say to encourage young people to get into farming?

Read as many books on the subject that you can get ahold of, and check out a lot of different farms. If you have the ability to apprentice, do that for as long as you can financially to get as much experience as possible in a wide range of production systems. Go to as many conferences as you can—the Black farming conference, the Latino farming conference, Eco-Farm, the Young Farmers conference—and meet folks who are just starting to get into farming to share and hear stories.

What do you wish you had known when you were a young farmer?

I got a lot of really good advice; the biggest thing is to really follow your heart and to believe in your convictions and you’re drawn to do in the world. Even when it gets hard, keep believing in yourself—if you don’t have that, then you’re missing most of what you need. At the same time, stay aware of what is happening in the world. Stretch out of your comfort zone and listen to other communities to hear what they need. That will also inform the direction you end up going in with farming.

Nephi Craig

Nephi Craig

Photo Credit: Evan Sung

Nephi Craig, a White Mountain Apache/Navajo executive chef, is the founder of the Native American Culinary Association, a network of Native cooks, chefs, scholars, farmers, and community members devoted to the development and preservation of Native American foodways. He is currently the Nutritional Recovery Program Coordinator at the Rainbow Treatment Center and Executive Chef of Café Gozhóó on the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Whiteriver, Arizona.

What challenges do you see in moving sustainable, local food forward?

I’m seeing changes across Arizona where we’re really starting to tap into the ancestral methods of growing, and we’re starting to study the wild flora and fauna of the state. It may not look like the desert has a lot to offer, but this revitalization of Arizona food and agriculture has been based on Native technologies—dry planting, wild herbs and medicines—that have been developed by Native peoples and reused.

One of the challenges that we continue to encounter is getting the tribal people of Native cultures to be recognized and acknowledged in the process of “rediscovering” stuff. There is a lot of “Columbusing” going on.

There’s a duty of people revitalizing these technologies to be responsible about how they’re doing it. [Native people] are sacred; they’ve survived this attempted genocide and they should be treated respectfully. Quinoa, chocolate—entire economies are built on products that were taken out of Native hands and are being sold while Native people are still in poverty.

Even with this new sense of openness, there are still obstacles. In my generation, as a Native person and a person of color, it’s safe for me to speak as an advocate for social justice and public health issues relative to our government. I never could’ve done that before. If I was to speak strongly against these systems, it could’ve been dangerous, even life-threatening, for me 50 to 100 years ago.

What role do chefs play in encouraging these changes?

Having a creative position of advocacy comes with a sense of responsibility and sensitivity. I’m sure it’s like that in every region, but it’s a little more amplified for Native cooks and chefs that have a certain degree of presence in the professional world.

We’re moving forward sensitively to unravel that knot and to provide food that’s simple and accessible and cool and fun. I’ll teach a classic dish of potato gnocchi—it’s an Italian dish, but impossible without potatoes from the Americas. Ratatouille is 75 percent Native foods. And an Asian hot pot—it would never been as hot before 1500 without Native chilies.

We’ve accepted the master narrative, but going back to our generation, we’re taking it back.

What do you say to encourage young people to farm?

Be prepared for a lifetime of hard work, commitment, science, and education. To me, cooking and agriculture go hand in hand. They require someone to be very strong, sensitive, and emotionally intelligent. You must to be able to pinpoint all the dynamics happening while growing and harvesting and feeding people.

Temple Grandin

Temple Grandin

Photo Credit: Rosalie Winard

Temple Grandin is a professor of animal science at Colorado State University. Some of her books are Animals in Translation, Thinking in Pictures, and Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach.

As a society, how can we get more young people to pursue careers in agriculture?

I have found that exposure to career choices at a young age is very important. One of the big problems we’ve got in education today is they’ve taken out the hands-on things, and students don’t get exposed to enough interesting things they could turn into careers. We need to be working on reading and the mathematics—and cooking, sewing, woodworking, and growing things. I’m a big proponent of [Future Farmers of America] programs. If a kid raises an animal, he has the responsibility of taking care of it.

If we don’t expose students to agriculture, they’re not going to get interested. It’s that simple.

What would you like to see the younger generation pick up and focus on in order to forward your goals?

Well, I think it’s good that people are getting into handling animals in a low-stress manner—that’s really good. Pay needs to be increased for stockmanship jobs. Research is very clear: good stockmanship pays. Calm animals gain more weight; dairy cows that are handled gently give you more milk. You take a skilled pen-rider in a feed yard—he finds those sick cattle when they’re just thinking about getting sick. People always want the thing, the new piece of equipment, more than they want the management. Stockmanship does not get enough credit.

Some of the people who are the best stock people are the kids who are kind of quirky and different, that have a special-education label. They’re going to be great at taking care of the dairy cows.

What advice do you have for young people interested in pursuing a career in agriculture?

Try on, each summer, a different internship when you’re in college. Try on different jobs in ag, see what you like. Try ’em on, just like you try clothes on. When I went to my aunt’s ranch, I tried on beef cattle, and I found out I liked them. We’ve got to get some of these kids off the electronics and show them there’s a big world out there.

Ben Burkett

Ben BurkettBen Burkett is a fourth-generation African-American family farmer from Petal, Mississippi. He currently serves as president of the National Family Farm Coalition and is an active member of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives / Land Assistance Fund and the Indian Springs Farmers Cooperative Association.

How big is the need for young farmers in Mississippi?

In our co-op, we’ve got 33 members, and the youngest one is 48. And the next youngest one is 60. I’m 65. And the best farmers are in their 70s. The problem with all these old farmers is we’ve got a market for a whole lot of stuff, but they say, “I’m not going to grow more; I’m going to grow less, if anything.” Our co-op has been around 40 years, and we’ve got to do something to keep going. We have no other choice, unless we want to see everything go out of business.

Are there young people in your area who want to take over?

Over the years, we’ve had two or three start a farm. They try a year or two and go broke, then come back and try again. The ones that I speak with, they really want to do it—they want to be farmers—and that’s 90 percent of it. You’ve got to have the desire.

I get calls all the time, from New York or Chicago. They want to come to the farm for two or three months. Their idea is that farming is glamorous, but when they get to the nuts and bolts of it, reality hits. [We work from] five o’clock in the morning until dark. There ain’t never been a farmer who says ‘I’m caught up.’ Ain’t no such thing, whether you’re farming 10 acres or 10,000. But I think it’s a bright future; it’s going to have to be.

What are the biggest challenges the new generation of farmers has to overcome?

Access to money, capital—to buy land and equipment—especially in the Black farming community. Land is so expensive now. In my era, farmland was $5,000 an acre.

What are you encouraged by?

The consumer is driving [the market]. They want to know where their food comes from, the quality of it, whether it’s grown organic or sustainable. Any time they talk like that in Mississippi, you know the other 49 states already know what’s going on.

How would you change farming in the U.S., and what advice would you give young farmers to help make that happen?

Less corporate control. You’ve just got a few farms controlling everything—tomatoes, celery, watermelon—it’s just a few farms. I would like to see local control, where farmers in specific areas farm together, produce their own energy together, and produce their own everything within their own watershed. Not only the food they eat but the energy they burn.

I believe, in the end, it’s going to come back to that, because you can’t keep on this fossil fuel deal. People want to know that their food comes locally.

Joan Dye Gussow

Joan Dye Gussow

Photo Credit: Susan Freiman

Joan Dye Gussow is the Mary Swartz Rose Professor Emerita and former chair of the Nutrition Education Program at Columbia University Teachers College. She is the author, coauthor, or editor of five books, including The Feeding Web: Issues in Nutritional Ecology, This Organic Life, and Growing, Older: A Chronicle of Death, Life, and Vegetables. She lives, writes, and grows organic vegetables on the west bank of the Hudson River.

You’ve taught a class about nutrition and ecology to a generation of students—what encourages you about young peoples’ attitudes toward food and farming today?

When I first started teaching this course, I often had students who knew nothing about ag, even if they’d grown up around people who farmed every day. But there was no association between nutrition and ag; I was thought of as crazy for asking people to learn about ag from a nutrition standpoint.

On the whole, nutrition students don’t have very much knowledge or education about agriculture; it’s simply not taught on that level. But the course is very popular, and people are very grateful.

In your letter you reflect on the fact that you’ve been growing food seriously for 30 years. What do you wish you had known when you were starting out?

The real issue is to feed the critters in the soil. I only understood that two years ago. You keep digging, and you think you’re adding stuff to the soil and you’re helping it, but it turns out the soil is doing a good bit of the work itself. I wish I had known I should do minimal tillage—without herbicides—to recognize the degree to which the little buggers in the soil are doing it all.

Your letter also details the decline of farmers in the U.S. How would you encourage young people to take up farming as a way of life?

In this era of total mediation of everything—the degree to which people are hooked to the web and their phones and mediated information, to be that much in touch with the natural world is very therapeutic. The most rewarding thing you can do is watch nature do its business.

You think of farmers as being isolated out there on the prairie, but that just doesn’t exist anymore; everyone has immediate contact with the entire world. You can live in a wonderful, free way, with a connection to nature, and it gives you a wonderful perspective on the world. It’s an unparalleled kind of life. It’s very hard work, and people can’t assume they’ll get rich, but I also think it’s a great life.

The post New Book Offers a Dash of Hope—and Dose of Reality—for Young Farmers appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>
https://civileats.com/2017/03/07/new-book-offers-a-dash-of-hope-and-dose-of-reality-for-young-farmers/feed/ 2