Animal, Vegetable, Junk: A History of Food, from Sustainable to Suicidal

With the title and subtitle, I was expecting something fairly inflammatory. What I was not expecting was for such an emphasis on racial inequality. This book continues the popular scheme of using the tools of western civilization to say that everything that western civilization has brought us is bad. The old "we are so awesome because we can say that we are evil" argument.

Animal, Vegetable, Junk traces the evolution of eating habits. The modern industrialized diet is heavily criticized for the negative impact it has on us. The USDA has primarily been focusing on the needs of food producers. Yet, it is also tasked with providing nutrition information. This goal itself is also confused, alternating between a desire to ensure adequate consumption while controlling for overconsumption. Farmers have been able to produce huge amounts of crops, but have needed help finding markets. Thus, we get things like ethanol and high fructose corn syrup.

There are plenty of diet fads out there. Food producers are more than happy to provide us with products to fulfil these. However, we would be better off focusing on plants and more basic foods.

The book focusses on various "exploitations" that have occurred through time. Famine is usually caused by government policies. (For example, the British helped contribute to famines in India and Ireland through their policies.) Food producers are often exploited in different ways. The Atlantic slave trade was launched to help raise sugar. Midwestern farmers are at the mercer of the large seed sellers and grain buyers. Modern agriculture is dominated by monocultures and migrant workers.

The solutions advocated are a mixed big. A return to small-scale organic polyculture is desired. However, unionization and high wages for farm workers is also advocated. Healthier, local food does sound nice. But would we be willing to sacrifice the convenience? Would this lead to even more of a separation between the rich and the poor? History is wrought with examples of society moving forward to a "worse" situation that we can't move back from. Industrialized agriculture may be the same. Cheapness is important to people. Attempts to improve food production that result in huge increases in price will not be met kindly. Society is more likely to support huge interventions to fight a monoculture blight than a more expensive polyculture. The best solution may be a gradual move to better soil-maintaining practices. Maybe GMOs will help us there? (The book is strongly on the anti-GMO route.) Many of the other arguments in this book are more coherently advocated for in other books.