Jump to content

Glutton-Free Dining


qwertyy
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Moral Crusade Against Foodies is a review of five relatively recent food books* that is also used as, essentially, a treatise against the hypocrisy, lack of ethics, and general insufferability of the food obsessed. Choice quotes (or at least a few that resonated with me):

IT HAS ALWAYS been crucial to the gourmet’s pleasure that he eat in ways the mainstream cannot afford. For hundreds of years this meant consuming enormous quantities of meat. That of animals that had been whipped to death was more highly valued for centuries, in the belief that pain and trauma enhanced taste. “A true gastronome,” according to a British dining manual of the time, “is as insensible to suffering as is a conqueror.” But for the past several decades, factory farms have made meat ever cheaper and—as the excellent book The CAFO [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations] Reader makes clear—the pain and trauma are thrown in for free. The contemporary gourmet reacts by voicing an ever-stronger preference for free-range meats from small local farms.
The same goes for restaurant owners like Alice Waters. A celebrated slow-food advocate and the founder of an exclusive eatery in Berkeley, she is one of the chefs profiled in Spoon Fed. “Her streamlined philosophy,” Severson tells us, is “that the most political act we can commit is to eat delicious food that is produced in a way that is sustainable, that doesn’t exploit workers and is eaten slowly and with reverence.” A vegetarian diet, in other words? Please. The reference is to Chez Panisse’s standard fare—Severson cites “grilled rack and loin of Magruder Ranch veal” as a typical offering—which is environmentally sustainable only because so few people can afford it.
But food writing has long specialized in the barefaced inversion of common sense, common language. Restaurant reviews are notorious for touting $100 lunches as great value for money.
One must never spoil a dinner party for mere religious or ethical reasons. Pollan says he sides with the French in regarding “any personal dietary prohibition as bad manners.” (The American foodie is forever projecting his own barbarism onto France.) Bourdain writes, “Taking your belief system on the road—or to other people’s houses—makes me angry.” The sight of vegetarian tourists waving away a Vietnamese pho vendor fills him with “spluttering indignation.”

That’s right: guests have a greater obligation to please their host—and passersby to please a vendor—than vice versa. Is there any civilized value that foodies cannot turn on its head?

The more lives sacrificed for a dinner, the more impressive the eater. Dana Goodyear: “Thirty duck hearts in curry … The ethos of this kind of cooking is undeniably macho.” Amorality as ethos, callousness as bravery, queenly self-absorption as machismo: no small perversion of language is needed to spin heroism out of an evening spent in a chair.

*The CAFO Reader, Best Food Writing, Blood, Bones, and Butter, Spoon Fed, and Medium Raw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for linking this up Qwerty. I don't have the energy to go into a full critique but Myers clearly makes a straw man out of foodies. At no point does he attempt to define "foodies" except by their most hyperbolic examples.. As someone (me) who took a year to write their thesis because I wanted to have pride in it, and make sure I didn't make a straw man out of any critic's argument I'm appalled by Myers' lack of attention.. What sloppy, indulgent, selfish writing. He writes like the extremely drunk regular at the bar talks.. My thesis is an 80 page paper weight but I'll be proud of it until I die. I hope Myers looks back with deep regret at this article one day.

/dick joke

//choke on your lentils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for linking this up Qwerty. I don't have the energy to go into a full critique but Myers clearly makes a straw man out of foodies. At no point does he attempt to define "foodies" except by their most hyperbolic examples.. As someone (me) who took a year to write their thesis because I wanted to have pride in it, and make sure I didn't make a straw man out of any critic's argument I'm appalled by Myers' lack of attention.. What sloppy, indulgent, selfish writing. He writes like the extremely drunk regular at the bar talks.. My thesis is an 80 page paper weight but I'll be proud of it until I die. I hope Myers looks back with deep regret at this article one day.

/dick joke

//choke on your lentils.

Agree. Thank you for adding the enlightening link Qwerty.

Clearly, Myers is a BITTER individual. I wonder if at any point he chose "foodies" to rail against, as opposed to say...Christians. :) .

Having said that...From Myer's quote above; I find myself in line with Bourdains perspective.

Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The presentation is a touch hostile, but really, many of the things he said resonated with me. These two passages in particular:

that to serve one’s palate is to do right by small farmers, factory-abused cows, Earth itself. This affectation of piety does not keep foodies from vaunting their penchant for obscenely priced meals, for gorging themselves, even for dining on endangered animals—but only rarely is public attention drawn to the contradiction
This has much to do with the fact that the nation’s media tend to leave the national food discourse to the foodies in their ranks. To people like Pollan himself. And Severson, his very like-minded colleague at The New York Times. Is any other subculture reported on so exclusively by its own members? Or with a frequency and an extensiveness that bear so little relation to its size? (The “slow food” movement that we keep hearing about has fewer than 20,000 members nationwide.)

made me stop and think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world was this article talking about, foodies being center stage and having cultural influence? This looked to me like a personal, nonsensical rant about a stereotype most people would not even recognize as really existing, much like the characters in the TV show The Goode Family. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one of the responses this article has generated. It is important (I think) to note that B.R.Myers is a vegan. This explains a great deal of his disdain and negativity.

B.R. Myers is indeed a vegan, as this response from food critic Robert Sietsema notes a few times.

As a supposed "author", he needs a bit of hand-smacking. To quote, "These include a sort of milk-toast priest". It's MILQUETOAST you pretentious, self-righteous prig. Hmmmmphhh! :)

I think that was supposed to be a pun of sorts, as the "priest" he was talking about had written an article about toast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a rant against foodies, and I can certainly identify with some of the his issues. For example, I can't draw a line between eating a humanely raised animal vs. factory fed animal. At the end of the day, that animal is dead because I want to eat it. My Buddhist mom is a vegan so I know exactly what he's talking about. Sure it's really a meat-eater issue but few people other than foodies try to justify eating meat by saying they care about how the animal lived and how they're eating every piece and savoring every bite. I'm pretty sure that dead animal couldn't care less. In one discussion, one writer suggests foodies really espouse eating less meat but of higher quality. Isn't this the elitism that the original article railed against?

I have no problem with fessing up. 1. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if everything I eat is sustainable or eco-friendly. 2. I will travel to eat, which in and of itself is environmentally damaging. 3. I order more food than I can eat in one setting - and if the food is good, I'll take the leftovers home, if not, it goes to waste.

Am I going to stop thinking about good food? Probably not, but I'm not going to deny that the original article makes some really good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one discussion, one writer suggests foodies really espouse eating less meat but of higher quality. Isn't this the elitism that the original article railed against?

The word "elitism" has become so corrupted by indiscriminate use and politicization that it is now practically meaningless. Still, I don't see how eating less but better is elitist. It may be something that socioeconomic elites do more than others, but that doesn't mean that all people who eat this way are elitist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, I can't draw a line between eating a humanely raised animal vs. factory fed animal. At the end of the day, that animal is dead because I want to eat it.

80 percent of antibiotic use today in the US is on factory farms. People are dying of what would be curable conditions because of the decline of antibiotic efffectiveness due to factory farming.

Is there no difference between an animal slaughtered humanely in a facility where they actually make sure the animal is dead before skinning it?

Factory meat farming leads to issues of waste disposal. There are cancer clusters and other disease factory being reported in the areas surrounding factory farms. Our ground water is being degraded by the bacteria from factory farms. Our rivers are being polluted by poor control of waste runoff from factory farms {to be sure, there are issues with some small farms on this point, but they are easier to fix as often these small farms just need education on the proper principles of waste management. Pennsylvania is having much success on this front with small holdings}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

80 percent of antibiotic use today in the US is on factory farms. People are dying of what would be curable conditions because of the decline of antibiotic efffectiveness due to factory farming.

Is there no difference between an animal slaughtered humanely in a facility where they actually make sure the animal is dead before skinning it?

Factory meat farming leads to issues of waste disposal. There are cancer clusters and other disease factory being reported in the areas surrounding factory farms. Our ground water is being degraded by the bacteria from factory farms. Our rivers are being polluted by poor control of waste runoff from factory farms {to be sure, there are issues with some small farms on this point, but they are easier to fix as often these small farms just need education on the proper principles of waste management. Pennsylvania is having much success on this front with small holdings}.

and to add to that note simply look at the Chesapeake Bay. Much of its decay has been brought upon for 2 reasons, industrial meat farming and over development of the coast line for residential housing. The industrial farming issue is simply waste that is pouruing into tributaries that lead into the Bay. Thus casuing alagae blooms and depleting the bay of oxygen and killing underwater life, thus oysters and crabs, as well as fish. 2 of the biggest violators are the Smithfield Pig farm, and Perdue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to add to that note simply look at the Chesapeake Bay. Much of its decay has been brought upon for 2 reasons, industrial meat farming and over development of the coast line for residential housing. The industrial farming issue is simply waste that is pouruing into tributaries that lead into the Bay. Thus casuing alagae blooms and depleting the bay of oxygen and killing underwater life, thus oysters and crabs, as well as fish. 2 of the biggest violators are the Smithfield Pig farm, and Perdue.

Now that I'm started.... how about Pfisteria {I think that's how it is spelled}, a bacteriological condition caused by runnoff from Poultry and pig farms. Have you ever seen you tube footage of pigs in gestational boxes? They spend their days chewing on the metal bars till their mouths are bloody. Animals on CAFO's stand in manure filled pens barely able to move so you can have that prime beef experience {happy heart attack too!}. Pasture raised and low intensity beef, to me, also tastes better. Just ain't prime grade.

Yes an animal dies so I can eat meat. Everything dies. My Ossabaw dinner called not just for the killing of an animal, for the deliberate killing of a very particular animal {a very delicious one as well} for our dining enjoyment. But this animal was raised with incredibly high standards of humanity and cleanliness. The farmer who riased it got fairly compensated for it and the effects on the environment were somewhere between beneficial and minimal.

Any meat you buy from Costco, Walmart, Giant, etc etc etc is part of this cycle of torture. It can be different. I can clearly define the difference between an animal tortured daily, and one that is raised consciously looking out for its welfare. Too bad this is such a radical idea to so many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes an animal dies so I can eat meat. Everything dies. My Ossabaw dinner called not just for the killing of an animal, for the deliberate killing of a very particular animal {a very delicious one as well} for our dining enjoyment. But this animal was raised with incredibly high standards of humanity and cleanliness. The farmer who riased it got fairly compensated for it and the effects on the environment were somewhere between beneficial and minimal.

Any meat you buy from Costco, Walmart, Giant, etc etc etc is part of this cycle of torture. It can be different. I can clearly define the difference between an animal tortured daily, and one that is raised consciously looking out for its welfare. Too bad this is such a radical idea to so many.

But for the past several decades, factory farms have made meat ever cheaper and—as the excellent book The CAFO [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations] Reader makes clear—the pain and trauma are thrown in for free. The contemporary gourmet reacts by voicing an ever-stronger preference for free-range meats from small local farms. He even claims to believe that well-treated animals taste better, though his heart isn’t really in it. Steingarten tells of watching four people hold down a struggling, groaning pig for a full 20 minutes as it bled to death for his dinner. He calls the animal “a filthy beast deserving its fate.”
The same goes for restaurant owners like Alice Waters. A celebrated slow-food advocate and the founder of an exclusive eatery in Berkeley, she is one of the chefs profiled in Spoon Fed. “Her streamlined philosophy,” Severson tells us, is “that the most political act we can commit is to eat delicious food that is produced in a way that is sustainable, that doesn’t exploit workers and is eaten slowly and with reverence.” A vegetarian diet, in other words? Please. The reference is to Chez Panisse’s standard fare—Severson cites “grilled rack and loin of Magruder Ranch veal” as a typical offering—which is environmentally sustainable only because so few people can afford it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric... since there is no comment on your part, what are you trying to say? That since Steingarten has views I do not, there is something wrong with my point of view?

There was a time when the killing of people for the amusement of Roman aristocracy was acceptable int he hundereds or thousands on a given day. Do I then advocate the bring back of the Arena because of my love of historical Rome?

I serve Bev's meat because they taste good first and foremost. When I make a sausage with his meat, the feel of the raw product is totally different, how it holds the fat and carries the spices are different. That it is also lower impact on the environment is the number two on my list. That it is local has almost nothing to do with my decision.

Just because you don't think that the torture of animals simply for the profit of the meat industry is not a problem, all abided by and aided by our tax dollars thru the Dept of Ag and all, well......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you don't think that the torture of animals simply for the profit of the meat industry is not a problem, all abided by and aided by our tax dollars thru the Dept of Ag and all, well......

I didn't say that at all (assuming I understand what you mean). I said from a Buddhist's point of view, I can't draw a line between humanely raised animals vs. factory fed animals because at the end of the day, a life is lost. And I said this isn't really a foodie vs. non-foodie issue, but a meat eater vs. vegan issue. However, I agree that many foodies try to justify their consumption of meat by saying they only eat humanely raised eco-friendly animals. That leads one to think that foodies are elitists, because I'm not entirely sure your average family (American or otherwise) can afford to eat these humanely raised eco-friendly animals. My initial post is simply saying that the article raises some very valid points. My quoted text is an attempt to demonstrate that.

BTW, I agree the least we can do is try to minimize the damage to the environment and eat only sustainable foods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real win is not that a few of us eat Bev Eggleston's pigs. The real win is when Wendy's makes {far fewer} hamburger from cattle grown with methods that ahve a far less great effect on our environment.

But the elimination of the cruelty that is factory farming is and of itself a good thing I believe. One thing Bev said at the dinner was that "just because something is accepted does ot make it acceptable. We as a society practice atrocities in the name of low prices. I just don't think that is a good thing for reasons above and beyond the fact that these practices per force are bad for the environment.

When you have a food contamination incident at a small farm, a few people get sick. When a single bad cow gets into a single batch of Jack in the Box burgers, and remember that that was years ago and the batch sizes are probably much larger now, 22,000 pounds of hamburger was contaminated. The lettuce outbreak caused by Commercial cow production n CAFO's potentially exposed millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in hearing details about how to feed 350 million people, 44 million of whom live below the poverty line, from small farms that have no detrimental effect on the environment.

Eating less meat, particularly less corn-fed beef and chicken, would go a long way. And those who live under the poverty line don't do so because of the cost of food but rather the political cost of say... not subsidizing cash crops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched last night's episode of Bizarre food. It takes place in and around San Francisco but it really touches on many aspects of ethical eating. In my opinion, ethical eating is distinguishable from being a foodie, and I think it's true that many foodies don't eat ethically, myself included (while many foodies, including members of this forum, are much more cognizant of our obligations to each other and future generations).

So what impressed me about last night's episode are: (i) a segment on dumpster diving, they go through dumpsters (of bodegas I think) to pick out food that is thrown away as required by law but are still edible, cook the food and serve it to anyone who wants it, (ii) a segment on eating bugs, truly sustainable protein that is completely affordable (not humanely raised mammals that are priced beyond the reach of an average American family, much less a family that lives in a 3rd world country), (iii) a segment on foraging for food, picking snails, fennel, seaweed, etc. (but then they charge $85 pp to eat it - smacks of commercialism and elitism), and (iv) a segment on Incanto - eating every part of the animal.

In summary, foodies per se aren't bad. There are probably vegan foodies out there. But not all foodies are ethical eaters. Some of the backlash are probably attributable to the fact that some people don't want to hear or admit what they do may be considered unethical by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in hearing details about how to feed 350 million people, 44 million of whom live below the poverty line, from small farms that have no detrimental effect on the environment.

Why is it that the "green revolution" has done so little for the extreme poor of the world. We have been in the industrial ag era for 80 years now and the issues of starvation, famine etc haven't gone away and most of the gains in life expectancy has come from public health issues like the reduction of childhood disease and the extension of life to the elderly.

I am not saying that we can feed everyone in the US with Bev Eggleston's Or Heintz Tomet's or Zach Lester's model of farming. But the cost to our country in pollution and poor health from the corn economy is incredible and just not toted up as so much of it comes from the externalities of farming.

Let's start by eliminating the subsidies to corn {and petrochemicals}. Let's end the corporate welfare that favors fast food and corporate food. Lets start having true pollution regulation and then see what the market place looks like. As I said up thread, the win is when a Wendys uses a food system that pollutes far less than the one used today, not when Bev Eggleston feeds the world because he simply can't.

The cost of food will rise int he US in a world I would like to see. Bu thte cost of health care and pollution will fall. There will be a trade off. Without the $.99 burger at fast food joints, maybe meat consumption will fall. With the cost of food being higher, maybe birth rates will fall. I don't knw what the world will look like. But as with golobal climate change, we are at a junction here. We simply cannot go on doing what we are doing unless we are willing to face the consequences. e-coli 0157 did not exist as a killer bacteria until the late 80's and it keeps getting worse. What will happen when industrial ag produces the next generation kiler? Or when our antibiotics stock becomes completely worthless at a time when new antibiotics are coming out slower and slower?

I know a little about opera. There are many artists in many areas that go to opera to see what can be done with the unaided human voice. They see an opera and take something back to their own field of arts and the opera informs their work. I don't have any illusions that opera will ever again be the dominant form of popular entertainment it was back in the days of Mozart, but opera crteates a challenge for other performers and adds to the equation. BevEgg and the small farms I support are to farming what opera is to other fine arts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed Ms. Qwerty was talking about the USA, not the developing world.

Clearly only one smal portion of my argument was directed at woeld problems. But the world problems dwarf those of the US by orders of magnitude. Do not the starving of the world deserve our attention?

Dietary associated disease and malnutrition are rampant in the US as well. The green revolution claims so much that it simply has not delivered on. Our farm policies and food policies and consumption patterns are bringing on a tidal wave of food related ilnesses: diabetes and heart disease are going to be killers of greater proportions in the future.

Querty also brings up a false dichotomy. I really think a great model for dairy and egg production is Kreider Farms in Lancaster PA. They are, I believe, the 6th largest producer of eggs and dairy in PA and are exemplary in reducing their impact with on site composting of their waste products, heat recovery from the compost piles, growing their own feedstock usingthat compost etc etc. The water quality on and near their property has been noted as goig up i a time when most dairy operations degrade the surrounding water.

Do they use large scale hen houses? Yep. But they use larger spaces and less crowding so self injurious behavior is reduced. Are they perfect? Nope. No one is! But if eggs were produced ala Kreider instead ot he filthy way most eggs are produced, a major imporvement in the ecoology would be achieved, with a lessening of the torture of chicken. They also use less antibiotics and chemicals on their farms than is standard.

Is Kreider a little more expensive? Yes, but they are competitively priced. When I was suing them, I was paying less than 10% more than conventional for a really superior product. But I no longer deal with their distributors in DC so I am using a smaller producer and I pay more {with no concomitant increase in my pricing}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in hearing details about how to feed 350 million people, 44 million of whom live below the poverty line, from small farms that have no detrimental effect on the environment.

I might suggest that one of the problems with developing a solution to this problem is the response to this single sentence I posted. What false dichotomy did I bring up? I was genuinely asking for how we might accomplish this. If defensiveness is the only reaction, I'm officially worried.

I was, in fact, referring to the United States because that's the issue we're talking about, not because it's the largest or most important issue. (God help us if every conversation had to always expand to encompass the weightiest possible angle on a subject.)

If you want to go into world nutrition, sure. As a result of the Green Revolution there are fewer famines and they affect fewer people. Period. It's irresponsible to conflate "famine" and "starvation" with malnutrition, undernutrition, or food insecurity, which still persist to an unacceptable degree. But they are not famine. I cannot, off the top of my head, even think of many recent famines. Sudan 1990s? North Korea? But neither of those was a result of production issues. (But I'm tired and I'd love to hear if I'm missing any.) And while the Green Revolution has undeniably saved millions of lives in Asia, its lack of success in Africa cannot be attributed to fundamental wrong-headedness, but rather a swarm of mitigating circumstances, including abysmal governance, persistent conflict, environmental factors, disease, and lack of infrastructure. Even so, as Steve Radelet illuminated in Emerging Africa, if we can endeavor to unbundle Africa from a monolithic entity to its 47 discrete countries (in the same way it's counter-productive to assign generalities to "the poor"), the so-called "emerging" countries are overcoming a lot of these obstacles and making real development progress that may in turn improve lives in neighboring countries.

In any case, coming back to the United States, I'd say that any progress toward sustainable food production is doomed to failure as long as an anti-obesity campaign can be nonironically referred to as treasonous and, as stated in the original article, "ethical" meat and veg remain prohibitively expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might suggest that one of the problems with developing a solution to this problem is the response to this single sentence I posted. What false dichotomy did I bring up? I was genuinely asking for how we might accomplish this. If defensiveness is the only reaction, I'm officially worried.

The false dichotomy is between the Bev Egglestons {or more extreme yet the Joel Salatins} and IBP Beef and Smithfiled Pork. There is a middle ground that can be informed by the small guys. Locovorism will not feed our country but a more conscious agricultural base could reduce our food based/caused problems greatly.

As I suggested, lets look into the model of low impact industrial farming as represented by Kreider Farms. They exist, the compete and they are growing. I don't see how pointing out a producer is being defensive.

I also pointed out that the end of the corn subsidies and the fuel subsidies that we have in the US would go a long way inc hanging the fatory farming equation.

I also pointed out that charging appropiately for pollution would again disadvantage industrial farming.

Please look at my answers for the actual steps I suggest and promote.

As to the point of the green revolution and food supply, I did use language loosly. But the industrial model leaves the poor still very poor and the not quite so poor in debt to agribusiness for the GMO seed and the equipemnt needed for that style farming. 80% of the poeple in China, by some estimates I have seen, have not experienced the economic miracle of China. They still are on the edge of starvation. Istead of susbsidising the growth of copmmodity crops as we do worldwide, we should be investing in infrastructure needed to reduce the loss of food to distributional and spoilage problems. I won't go into the way political decisions around the world and who has been historically supported on a political basis contribute mightily to the food problems of the world. But again, I don't see any necessary role for Indistrial ag in solving these problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....the fatory farming equation.

It's obvious, I'm suing them for lack of proofreading of my posts on DR.Com that mention them!

Dean's lack of proofreading normally drives me crazy, but "fatory farming" may be, at last from him, a serendipitous and felicitous slip of the finger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scaryness to come from big ag.

From the people who thought it a great idea to feed dead ground up cow to vegetarian cows!

This is incredibly important. Standard industrial agriculture is causing us to lose antibiotics as a force against disease. Do we need to wait till there are no working antibiotics left and people are dying of infections in mass numbers to do something? This is what you support when you buy chicken at the big box store and the conventional grocery and in nugget form at McWendy's King

Add to that the emerging evidence of disease clusters in areas heavy with industrial CAFO's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Pollan volleys back in an interview in the Globe and Mail.

IB: What do you make of the complaints of B.R. Myers, who has aesthetic and moral objections to foodies in the latest Atlantic Monthly?

MP: His aesthetic problem is an ethical problem, and that’s that he’s a vegan. And if you look at the way he writes about these issues...everything he dismisses as gluttony always involves eating an animal. So there’s a few agendas mixed up in that, and he’s not completely open about what they are.

One of the things that strikes me about foodie-ism, to use a term that I really despise, is that it is ethically inflected in a way that other forms of past interest in food have not been. And I’m sure you noticed this amongst the chefs you were with. What’s very striking about the current interest in food is that it’s not purely aesthetic. It is not purely about pleasure--people are very interested in the system that they’re eating from. And they’re very interested in the way the food was produced and the story behind it. People are mixing up aesthetics and ethics in a very new way, that some people are uncomfortable with, frankly. The idea that you could take any pleasure from politics, that you could mix those two terms, is a very un-American idea. We see it as you’re either indulging yourself, or you’re doing the world good. The fact is, slow food and other elements of the food movement are proposing that the best choice, the most beautiful choice, is often the most sustainable choice. It might be more expensive, and that’s a problem that we need to work on. But I think the industry is feeling very threatened right now by the fact that so many people are asking hard questions about their food. And so there’s an effort underway to discredit the food movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...