Insinuations from her critics notwithstanding, Obama has not endorsed nanny-state or controversial remedies such as ending sugar subsidies, imposing soda-pop taxes or zoning McDonald’s out of certain neighborhoods. Instead, she is pushing for positive, voluntary change: more recess and physical activity, more playgrounds, more vegetable gardens, fresher food in schools and grocery stores, better education on the issue for parents and children.

But the big business model is:  Keep the kids in front of the TV so we can teach them to become mindless consumers. The commercials about how the GOVERNMENT wants to control what we feed our children were some of the absolute worst of the past election cycle around here.

Yup, and the model is inherently short sighted: who cares about what will be happening 10 years from now, so long as our stock price is up tomorrow?

And maybe we should stop telling people what to eat and get rid of the huge subsidies the government provides to the various unhealthy agribusinesses? After all, that’s almost socialism!

The subsidies are a crime. What should be subsidized, if anything: that which is local, organic, humane.

Also, you can make a salad for a cheap price if you live in a decent suburb, but walk into any grocery store in an ungentrifed (or newly gentrifying) neighborhood, and you can spend an hour sifting through the rotten produce to find, at last, a still-questionable tomato. Yes, I’m talking to you, C-Town on Havemeyer.

I’m not totally on board with the local/organic stuff: we can grow more food with better disease resistance non-organically: which, if we did it right, could feed everyone. I like the whole “feed everyone” idea. Plus, if the crop is inherently disease resistant, we don’t need to dump as much DDT and whatever on the growers.

We’ve been doing “in-organic” growing for centuries: splicing one plant with another. It’s not inherently evil. The short-height corn variety alone has increased crop harvest threefold in Africa simply by having a short stalk which doesn’t get fucked up by wind. This is

I’m not against gene splicing to produce better crops. I disagree with the current “organic” laws that define what “organic” is in the U.S.--that’s not what I’m after. I’m mostly interested in the humane treatment of animals, and for this reason, I eschew Horizon products, which claim to be “organic” (and may legally be so) but don’t seem any different to me than any other factory farm operation. I try (when possible, which isn’t nearly as often as I’d like) to buy milk locally, from happy cows, and not ultra-pasteurized (regular pasteurization is better for you).

I also try to buy products locally because 1, it helps the economy in my region, and 2, it uses less energy, and 3, a relationship with the people who grow what you eat is not a bad deal.

I like the whole feed everyone idea too, but we have to get the food to the people. If we run out of oil--or if oil becomes rare enough to skyrocket the prices--before a new energy solution is found, “everyone” will be screwed.

I would never criticize anyone on a budget (or anyone, really) for purchasing the food options that were cheaper rather than organic/local, but I still think it makes sense for those of us who are economically able to do what we can regarding the environment to go ahead and do so.

And finally, regarding organic, I’m not so worried about eating the pesticides on inorganic food so much as what they are doing to the world they grow in: the surrounding fauna, the other flora, the rivers, the lakes and the air of the farms that they grow on. I am open to a balance (and many foods classified as organic do use chemicals and pesticides approved for organic use), as long as we take an honest look at what we’re doing and just don’t do it because it makes more money for Monsanto et al.