I have to say that I'm still surprised and disappointed that more Christians aren't on the front lines of supporting what God naturally created and intended. If you're not supporting that, than you are automatically supporting a failing man-made system that provides profits to the greedy and poor health for all of us. And since our children and the poor are getting the shortest end of the stick, food production has become an issue of social justice.
I guess convenience and misplaced frugality are just too high of a value in our contemporary culture to make any significant changes. The problem is, those values never made Jesus' list.
Posts
14 comments:
I couldn't agree more Mel. Thanks to you, I'm actually aware of this sort of thing. (By the way, saw the pregnant pics on an older post!.. you look so beautiful! and there's nothing more beautiful than a woman carrying life!)
Tim,
Interesting points. I'll get back to you on the veracity of those ideas in a bit, but even if they were true overseas, that still doesn't justify the following. A highly processed twinkie costs less than an apple because the FDA subsidizes many of its forty ingredients including high fructose corn syrup. Clearly the government generally cares more about profits for the big guys than the health and well being of the average and particularly low-income American.
No argument that the poor in America don't eat healthy food. No argument there is a lot of cruelty in animal husbandry. But most of the eating related deaths in the world are from lack of access to food not from processed food. The number of people dying from diabetes is nowhere close to starvation. 200 people just died of starvation while you read this compared to the 1 person who was diagnosed with a treatable illness.
Consider my sponsored child Eric in Rwanda. His family is considered quite fortunate to have one cow. The lives of everyone in his family depend on that one cow. If that cow gets sick should they not use antibiotics and vaccines? They live in a drought prone area. Should they not use genetically-modified drought-resistant grain? With no savings they depend on a harvest each and every year.
By the world's standards ($1/day) Only the ultra-rich can afford to buy from a rancher who calls his cattle by name and personally leads them to slaughter. Farmers who own land are well off and only rich farmers have enough margin in their lives to intentionally embrace the inefficiencies of 17th Century farming techniques.
For an interactive experience, you might want to check out: http://www.fh.org/hd_introduction
Tim rightly points out that lack of access to food is the reason most people in the world go hungry. Lack of access, however, is not primarily due to food under-production, but due to political choices and policies that lead to unequal and grossly inequitable distribution. In the scenario Tim proposes, we must ask more questions. What forces conspire to make families like Eric's so dependent on one precarious food source? Why should they have no savings? Why should they have to buy patented seeds from foreign agricultural companies every season rather than be able to save seeds from their own crops? How do corporate greed, governmental corruption and trade policies interact to keep families like Eric's in the precarious positions they're in, year after year? If we want future generations of Rwandans to have more opportunities than Eric's family currently does, a narrow view of what "sustaining life" requires is dangerously myopic.
The relationships of dependence created by modern agricultural technology and the destructive ecological effects are well-documented. Even if we accept that increased food production has contributed to global human welfare, we have got to see that the way the system currently works is broken and oppresses at least as many as it purports to save.
Loving the dialogue, folks.
Here are alternative (but by no means exhaustive) responses to some of your thoughts, Tim.
"If Eric in Rwanda's cow gets sick" - rather than relying so heavily and soley on vaccines/antibiotics, I would hope that Eric and his family are being taught preventative methods of caring for animals. No. 1 rule about caring for cows is that God created them to eat grasses (fresh or dried) rather than corn, soy, animal by-products, waste, etc. and as soon as they digest something they are not intended to, they are more prone to illness. Besides, the Rwandans are not going to become their sole suppliers of vaccines and antibiotics anytime soon, so it's continued reliance on the West.
"GM drought resistant grain" is not as drought-resistant as advertised. (See article below.)
"No savings for next years crops" - so why make them dependent on GM crops that produce sterile seeds? This forces them to buy new seeds each year (from guess who?) instead of just harvesting them from the real corn that God resourcefully made to reproduce free seeds each year.
"Only the ultra-rich can afford to buy sustainable animal products from rich farmers who own their land" - though I am rich by the world's standards, we live on one income and are able to buy sustainable animal products from a middle class farmer who rents his land. Rich farmers are mono-croppers who receive subsidies from the government to grow crops, many of which aren't even food-grade. As for the developing world, mixed farming on a small scale is becoming (again) a viable option for people to become their own farmers rather than relying on sub-par food shipped from the rich ones in the West. It actually helps to recreate the "miracle soil" that has been eroded by years of abuse to and ignorant neglect of the land.
"The inefficiencies of old-school farming" are making a comeback! According to a Feb 4th, 2009 article on the website of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, "Conservation Agriculture is a farming system that does away with regular ploughing and tillage and promotes permanent soil cover and diversified crops rotation to ensure optimal soil health and productivity. Introduced some 25 years ago, it is now practiced on 100 million ha of land across the world."
I would agree with Grace that GM foods just aren't "all good" like mainstream media would like us to believe. And they are not only more deficient in nutrients than regular crops, but they can actually lead to devastating health among the world's poor. (See article below.) I'm not satisfied with giving people who have no food bad food - not to mention continuing to make them dependent on Western Agribusiness monsters like Mansanto for everything from terminator seeds to DDT laced fertilizers. There has got to be a better way.
Here's the article I was referring to on GM-free sustainability by a Scientific Advisor to the Third World Network. I'll let the biochemist do the talking: http://westonaprice.org/farming/gm-free-sustainable.html
amen sister! :)
First off, I’d like to acknowledge that we all want the same thing; for people to live healthy and whole lives. I would sincerely love for everyone in the world to be able to make the same choices you are making for your family. Your decisions are good. But unfortunately, you live a very fortunate life in which you have the luxury of choices. Everyone reading this blog from their own computer and internet access is among the world’s financially elite. Your middle-class organic farmers are wealthier than 98% of the world’s farmers. They are rich. If you don’t know how rich you are, I have a missions trip to the continent of your choice to send you on.
For much of the world the decision to eat the healthiest rice or no rice at all is not a choice they can make. They and their families must be fed. They have to eat before than can start eating healthier. Genetically modified rice may kill them in 40 years, no rice will kill them in 40 days. That we fret over which type of peaches to buy seems obscene to the starving. You might sacrifice a great deal of your income to insure your family eats well, they sacrifice so that their families can eat at all. The goal is absolutely to get the world to the same place you are, but we’re not even close yet.
The reasons for poverty are complex, but one among them is geography. Farmers in Ethiopia are never going to be as successful as farmers in Iowa even with the best of practices. The environment in which they were born is opposed to them. The “purest” forms of farming many times offer them one result, no food. Their seeds don’t germinate, rains don’t fall, insects attack. They need every advantage that can be offered to them simply to live for the next season. Of course there are many other factors working against them such as government / Western oppression, short-sightedness, world view and their own sin, but you can’t overlook how difficult the environment they live in is. If famine struck our land I think you and I would make the same choices they do.
This topic reminds me a bit of another conversation I once heard. A development worker was asked “why aren’t Christians getting behind homeopathic medicine.” She matter-of-factly stated “Because it kills poor people.” Homeopathic medicine has a lot of good things to tell us about the abuses of Western medicine (and there are many). We should listen closely to what its advocates have to say. But if we embrace it, we need to live with the fact that people are going to start dying of breast cancer and many other diseases much more benign. Homeopathic medicine can really only be successfully practiced with Western medicine as a backup for the more extreme and violent medical situations. On its own people die young.
For more on biblical ways to help people out of poverty I highly recommend http://www.povertyunlocked.com
Hey Melanie, I am the 9th comment! I guess you’ve found a hot button.
I resonate with the heart of the article you shared, and it is based on one of my favorite scriptures. I totally agree that some of the practices in animal husbandry are abusive and not right. However, I wanted to touch on your comment about the issue of social justice in food production.
Truly sustainable agriculture (sustainable anything, really!) needs to be adoptable by all of mankind. So I would ask this as an example… Would the acreage currently dedicated to beef production in America--if used ONLY for pasture and forage crops with no grain feeding--be enough for the entire population if everyone ate the same amount of beef as your family?
This should be an easy calculation to do if you seek out the right information. I haven’t done it, but you can find the acreage, average head per acre, pounds of beef per head, etc.
You might find that there would be plenty of meat available for the whole country to adopt this practice and share your beef consumption practices. If not, though, one of three things must happen… (1) You’ll need to eat less beef than you’re currently consuming, to be taking only your share (without eating more of another type of meat… chain reaction), (2) More untouched acreage must be converted to pastureland--prairies, forests, hillsides, etc., or (3) Demand will exceed supply, and the poor will get the short end of the stick.
Knowing your rancher personally is a great thing. Eating forage-fed beef is also great. It would be beautiful to see a society where this were true for everyone. I just want to make sure we’re not creating an ideal--and raising it up as God’s truth--that turns out to be unjust.
And meanwhile... these people are dying and going to hell. Just had to add that thought to bring in a truly eternal perspective. So they live to be 80 instead of 40... so they are healthier... these are good things... but if they die and go to hell than what benefit was it?
Not that we can't be working on both, but we need priorities.
Josh, this one is for you...
The Pastor and the Grocery Store
Have a 5-minute listen.
That's a great story. I don't want to be misunderstood though. I did not say that a holistic approach was wrong. What is wrong is if we don't have a holistic approach - if we just focus on giving people nutritious meals and clean water. The end game, the highest priority, has to be the gospel. A non-holistic approach, ignoring either aspect, is misguided, but the greatest priority has to be the gospel.
Right. Agreed. Glad you clarified. I did not pick that up from your earlier post. Thanks Josh!
Josh, I think you're expressing an incomplete picture of the gospel. That's gnosticism. The gospel isn't just for people's souls. Jesus died to redeem our whole lives. If we're just after people's souls, we aren't teaching the gospel.
http://www.mcmahan.info/blog/2009/02/13/evangelicalism-gnosticism/
Whew! Busy week. But wanted to attempt to conclude my thoughts as I can't keep up the commenting pace that this post requires. But thanks to all for making it such an interesting and thought-provoking discussion!
In regards to the social justice aspect of sustainable agriculture, I actually disagree that the ideal would be for everyone to eat the same amount of meat or their "fair share." First, I don't think all people even want to eat the same things.
But more importantly, I don't think "fairness" was ever one of Jesus' values. In fact most of His parables involved lots of "unfair" terms and conclusions (prodigal son, workers wages, distribution of talents, etc.)
I absolutely disagree that "truly sustainable agriculture needs to be adopted by all mankind." Even around the US, there are different methods of farming that work in dry places better than humid places and vice versa. And just because it's not happening in places of drought right now, everyone else should live as if they are in famine? That seems like a good example of raising up an unjust ideal as if it's God's truth.
I do think God's creation can be a general template by which to model world-wide farming practices. All land areas untouched by man naturally thrive with the co-existence of plants and animals - hence the mixed farming method. It's just a more efficient use of the land space and creates its own benefits. GM and mono-crops specifically do not allow for this.
(And just so we're clear on the Sunukjian family's meat consumption:
We incorporate inexpensive dried beans as a protein source.
At most we order 2 pounds of beef a week from our farmer.
And I can get 3 meals for a family of 4 out of a whole chicken.
My passion for frugality is as strong as my passion for real food, but I'll save that for another post! ;-))
I DO think that Jesus valued and taught stewardship. Sustainable agriculture is more than about everyone getting their side of beef. It's about stewardship of all flora, fauna, land, people, food produced, etc. And I believe that collectively we have much room for improvement in this regard nationally, internationally, and personally. And since our personal choices are the ones we have the most control over, it should start there. That was the original point of my post.
Personally, I strongly believe that where we put our money (not just our tithe or giving), the choices we make and the people and corporations we support have a direct and global impact. [For example, when you eat a McDonald's menu item or your local grocery store meat, you are likely supporting the destruction of Amazon rainforests so that soy crops can be grown, shipped to Europe to feed chickens and cows in captivity, and then bought for cheap by huge companies making money off of the whole wasteful and unethical system.]
I have read, thought, and prayed a lot about our families choices and that's what has led me to the place we are. I'm not necessarily saying that every person should look like me in this regard, I'm just asking people to read, think and pray about something they probably never have. And I'm especially encouraging Christians to do so, since we're Ambassadors (and not always respected ones) for the Lord. The American Christian attitude toward food is selfish, gluttonous and embarrassing. And because of the idolatrous place it has in our culture, it has become one of the last places to reach any collective conviction.
In regards to the spin off discussion as to whether sustainable agriculture is a viable solution for the poorest of the poor who deal with land that was never good in the first place, I first think that that's a smaller percentage of the world's poor. As Tim said, geography is an issue, but one of many and I'm arguing that the many other man-made problems that got the rest of the poor and their land to where they are now should be questioned in mass and changed. And I'm also arguing that GM crops will continue to add to these problems. I agree with Tim, however, that people do need food right now and so the change should certainly be gradual. (Admittedly, this is the area that I am most challenged by and don't have a lot of solutions for. But my idealism and respect for God's creation more than man's invention still makes me hopeful for sustainable agriculture in the long run.)
My best metaphor for this is that once the modern world finds a solution for a problem that affects a small percentage of people, that solution begins to be applied in more and more situations where it's no longer necessary and actually causes harm. Our worship of modern technology tends to throw the "natural" baby out with the bathwater. And what could the motivation behind this be? Ah, yes, money for the Man.
C-sections - great for people who need them, but are happening to as many as 1/3 of birthing women in many hospitals for really poor reasons and having significant negative consequences.
Vaccinations - great for saving some lives from some devastating diseases. But now children in America are required to have upwards of 20+ (and counting) vaccines for minimal risk diseases and as a result are being linked to major health issues themselves.
Antibiotics - great as a last resort to kill some infections, but now being handed out like candy as a first resort for issues that have God-made natural remedies that the modern world has forgotten. And they produce a cycle of infection that is very difficult get out of.
I do not intend to start future debates with these examples but am only trying to draw a parallel that our worship of genetically modified seeds, foods, crops, etc. as the sole and grand-sweeping solution for the world's ills should be loudly questioned and the minimal necessary use of them should be with much caution and always in partnership with the natural order of things.
I agree with both Tim and Wendy that we are all desiring the same thing - sustainable solutions for everyone. And I have to say I SO appreciate your hearts for the world's poor. I will continue to listen to the podcasts and value what you guys are doing. Thank you for opening my eyes to things I hadn't thought about before and for your commitment to Christ's heart for the poor.
Okay, I'm official neglecting my children by spending so much time on this. I'm going to conclude and thank you for your forgiveness of my incomplete and unorganized response to a great conversation. Blessings to all and thank you, God, for being bigger than all this!
Post a Comment