FORUM
11
APRILS, 2009
Reform our food system, save the worIdP
By Joanna Bernstein
Senior Writer
The notion that reforming our
food system and the multi-facet
ed means by which we grow and
acquire the foods that we eat will
save the world, or at the very least,
improve this country's health, econ
omy, and environmental soundness
may sound over-simplified, idealis
tic, and far-fetched. But it's not.
A couple of months ago, shortly
before President Obama was elected
to office, environmental journalist
Michael Pollan wrote a letter to our
nation's next "Farmer in Chief." In
his letter Pollan identified the most
prevalent factors that currently
plague our food system and threat
en the stabilization of agro-econo
mies and food security both in, and
outside, of the United States.
The most integral problem that
is enigmatic to the sustainability
of our food system can be boiled
down to two words: fossil fuels.
Petroleum is a main ingredient
that enables corporate agribusiness
es and mile-wide mono-cropped
farms to function at the hyper-pro
ductive levels that they do.
In order for a large corporately
owned farm in Iowa to produce
hundreds of thousands of bushels
of corn each week, countless gallons
of petroleum-based nitrogen fertil
izers must be applied to each acre.
For that petroleum-infused corn
to be packaged and/or processed
into syrups and starches, (some)
machines running on fossil fuels
must be used. Finally, for those
packaged and processed ingredi
ents to reach either the next pro
cessing plant, restaurant, gas sta
tion, or grocery store (which
may or may not even be
in this country) trucks and
planes running on fossil
fuels must transport them
hundreds and hundreds
of miles.
Fossil fuels are not
inherently evil. However,
the fact that there is a
dwindling supply of oil
on this planet, coupled
with the fact that we are in
an international economic
crisis with skyrocketing fuel
prices (which subsequently
lead to skyrocketing food
prices and people rioting for
food in third world countries), is a
clear and pressing indication that
we must kick our oil habit.
People often times falsely assume
that kicking our fossil fuel addiction
simply means driving less. This is
not the case. The facets comprising
large scale agribusiness consumes
more fossil fuels than our transpor
tation industry does.
So, now that we've acknowl
edged the clear and present danger
pertaining to fossil fuels and how
our dependence on them is plagu-
%£>ybie vAb KW'lowHy
^ him* Hcs
a'n\}M
Nasimeh Easton/Guilfordian
ing our food system, what should
we do? Well, there's a whole lot
that we should do, but what can
we do?
According to Michael Pollan, one
of the first things that we can do is
work to regionalize our food sys
tems.
Regionalizing our food systems
means more than buying locally
and strolling over to the farmer's
market when we feel like being
environmentally and socially
responsible.
Pollan says that
regionalizing our food
systems means redi
recting % government
subsidies which cur
rently encourage
large, environmen
tally unsustainable
mono-cropping oper
ations to overpro
duce things like corn
and soy, and instead
awarding smaller
and more medium
sized sustainable
farms with these sub
sidies so that they can
invest in non-fossil
fuel based technology to enhance
their productivity, and in turn, sell
more crops to their local communi
ties and grocery stores.
Those who would like to see this
regionalization of our food systems
take place should both write their
congressman about the issue, and
do their best to eat foods free of
mass-produced com and soy-based
by-products.
Regionalizing our food systems
means that community members
would have access to fresher, health
ier, and more guilt-free foods that
are not soaked with the notions of
environmental degradation, social
injustice, and international violence
that are intrinsic to the obtaining of,
and the production, of fossil fuels.
JCnowing what we know now, one
can only hope that President Obama
and Secreatary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack begin to take some of the
steps that Pollan has recommend
ed.
The over-stuffed people of this
nation are tired of eating oil for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner; and
the under-fed citizens of the third
world are tired of suffering at our
large-scale agribusiness' expense.
Pope's approach to ending AIDS unrealistic
By Sam Jenkins
Staff Writer
Just when you thought the Catholic Church
was out of the headlines for a little bit and that
perhaps their rap would someday be repaired.
Pope Benedict XVI had to go and blow the
"no news is good news" streak for the whole
gang.
As we all know, there is a big AIDS problem
in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of people
have died from this horrible and seemingly
unstoppable menace. Due to the nature of the
continent — the number of countries, poverty,
civil wars — trying to fight the disease seems
like an uphill battle to many. About 22 million
people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with
HIV, according to UNAIDS, a United Nations
agency.
In 2007, three-quarters of all AIDS deaths
worldwide were in the region, as well as two-
thirds of all people living with HIV.
Africa is also the fastest-growing region for
Roman Catholicism, which is why old Pope B.
thought he might pay a visit. Of course, one
of the topics of discussion with the Pope was
HIV/aids.
This is where he screwed up.
"You can't resolve (the battle against AIDS)
with the distribution of condoms," he said.
"On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Now that's just a ridiculous statement. We
all know that.
But let's put this into context. It's not break
ing news that the Catholic Church is against
artificial forms of contraception. So an anti
condom statement is not surprising. But we all
know that condoms don't "give you AIDS."
The Pope and the rest of his church believe
that a. more moral (read: Christian) attitude
towards sex is the real solution. So, what he's
saying is that government distribution of con
doms sends out a message that they are not
viewing sexual activity with the seriousness
it deserves.
With that disclaimer being said, I will now
say that I politely disagree with the Pope's
stance.
What the Pope wants is abstinence, at least
until marriage, for an entire nation. That's
just not realistic. You can't stop people from
having sex, even if they do live on a continent
rampant with the disease, but you can bite
the bullet and provide and promote sexual
protection.
It's like Guilford wanting to become a
smoke-free campus to keep butts out of the
mulch, and trying to create a bubble of "absti
nence from smoking" instead of setting up
more outdoor ashtrays — it's just idealistic
and doesn't make any sense.
There is also the fact that the Pope's anti
condom statement could be considered an
ethnocentric one, and an example of the way
Africa, as a whole, is constantly considered
"less-than."
"His opposition to condoms conveys that
religious dogma is more important to him
than the lives of Africans," said Director of
Policy Rebecca Rhodes of the Treatment Action
Campaign in South Africa, an organization
committed to preventing HIV infections.
I would argue that if the AIDS epidemic
were occurring in Europe or North America,
the Pope would work a little harder to pro
mote a realistic way of stopping the unneces
sary deaths.
But in all seriousness, the Pope is a little bit
out of touch.
Yes, the only way you can prevent STDs is
through abstinence, but the most realistic way
is the use of proper protection — that's right
kiddies, condoms. And be careful because
this stuff hits closer to home than you might
think.
"There is AIDS on campus," said Director
of Student Health Helen Rice. "A lot of people
in the class I teach look at me like I'm crazy
when I say that, like 'this is Greensboro, North
Carolina,' but it's true."
f
Just
pays the first
months rent!
(plus a free locIO
V SiciiCairSdf Stonge
iwww.securcare.com
3730 W Wendover Ave
Greensboro, NC 27407
336-855-0428
Rease bring in this ad to take advantage of our offer.