North Americans, in particular, pay quite a small portion of their income on food.
That's a desirable thing, to have more people able to afford food to support life.
The New York Times' Michael Moss yesterday reported the tragic case of Stephanie Smith of Minnesota:
E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?hpWhile we could address all kinds of issues about corporate responsibility, personal responsibility, carbon footprint, market concentration, government responsibility and other large policy issues, I think we need to focus on a very simple issue.
What is the definition of food?
My Penguin English Dictionary 2nd Edition defines food as "material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat, along with minerals, vitamins etc. taken into the body of a living organism and used to provide energy and sustain processes essential for life."
In the case of the delinquent hamburger, it meets the definition right up to "sustain processes essential for life."
I like my dictionary, but I will quibble. I prefer this simpler definition, "Food is material taken into the body to sustain processes essential for life."
I suspect, as I have not taken any sort of definitive survey, that most of us believe that for food to be food, it must sustain processes essential for life.
It seems to me there is an effort here to see how close the industry can come to not producing anti-food and occasionally it slips over the line. It's not so much that the "food" is more or less effective at sustaining processes essential for life, but that the "food" does not sustain processes essential to ending life.
When that line is crossed, that "food" is then not cost efficient.
It is all cost, no benefit.
In fact, it creates new cost, the cost of health recovery or death. Let's add to that the opportunity cost of lost productivity of the sick person and her or his family. Let's also add the cost of redirection of scarce health care resources to look after someone made ill by believing that the "food" is food, not non-food or anti-food.
Now, Let's have another look at the cost efficiency of our food system.
I wonder if we don't have better assurance of food meeting its definition when we eat local, where the accountability is transparent and there is an added peer pressure to avoid contamination or spoilage that may threaten the producer's neighbours.
Certainly, local food must be prepared and handled properly to avoid the same disaster, but at least the chain of accountability has a much better chance of being short and transparent enough to be effective at putting effective preventive measures in place.
Mike
Posts
