Convenient food

Being a "locavore" and eating foods grown near where you live may not help the environment as much as you might think, according a new study. Mason Inman National Geographic News April 2008

I was born before supermarkets, before freezers and definitely before convenience and prepackaged foods. I remember when food was local because the economic and food technological machinery did not exist. The last few weeks have exposed a fatal weakness in all human systems, namely selfishness and greed. Human beings have tunnel vision and are essentially reductionist, seeing only what they want to see. Food production is never merely about carbon footprint nor about saving time or about profits.

The last few weeks the media has been filled with listereosis and the sliced meats and cheese contamination. We've known for a long time that ground meats are more prone to bacterial contamination, but assumed that cooked and cured meats would be safe. But of course pre-slicing before sales removes that protection. Prepackaged and pre sliced foods are quick and convenient. It removes food preparation from those eating to others making profits.

Now milk intentionally contaminated with melamine is in the news. 53,000 babies and young children affected in a country with a one child policy! But this is not the action of one person or one company as so far 22 companies have been identified as following this dangerous practice of doctoring the milk. But the effect is not localized to once country but across Asia and even North America because globalization means foods travel the world.

Most food in North America travels at least 1500 kilometres to you in fact In the USA, in one meal ingredients may come from five different nations, and in Australia, that might be 30,000 km from farm to stomach. We want strawberries or raspberries in winter so they travel across continents. We're encouraged to eat more fish except we're a long way from the ocean and of course no more than 2 portions a week because of mercury.

In all of this, whoever we are we assume that our governments and officials will look after us. But it's interesting that the politicians are campaigning like fury and spend more time working on negative talk rather than the role of politicians. I was asking myself what I should have said the other night when the local candidate appeared on my door step. Here's a few questions that came to mind this afternoon "If you're elected who will command your loyalty, 1) your party, 2) those who voted for you, or 3) the people living in this neighbourhood?" or "Would you still stand for election if there were no pension and the salary was half that currently?" or "Why do you exactly want to be a politician?"

No government is ever elected on the platform that "We will spend extra millions on testing and confirming the safety of water and food." No government would voted themselves a pay decrease because they did not fulfill promises. Somehow, at the moment, being a politician seems to be another way to convenient food?

Good government has checks and balances to ensure safety and wise practices. In a democratic system this is normatively found in losing an election. The problem, I see, is that pensions and benefits cut in too early and there are really few penalties for a politician who fails to be re-elected. Furthermore government is no longer agent of the peoples rather politicians are in the same category as a used car salesman, you wouldn't trust anything they had to say. Negative campaigning is always unhelpful and unsavory.

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue. An unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment. Proverbs 17:28 , 18:1