Sustainable? Sustainable bullsh*t, you mean
Seems that Big Agribusiness wants to control the debate on "sustainability" and, basically, every other subject involving food, humans and the environment. Surprised?
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."That may be the case, but apparently sustainable by any other name makes you sound like a dirty hippie. And our government doesn't want no stinkin' dirty hippies.
A few weeks ago, Obama Foodorama posted that sustainable is now the USDA's #1 adjective of choice. Well, if they are serious, that's a good thing. But keep in mind that everyone from Coke and Pepsi to pesticide maker DuPont thinks they are sustainable (judging by their attendance at the upcoming Sustainable Brands conference). And there's the Sustainable Agriculture Summit in Chicago with attendees like ConAgra, Sara Lee, and Subway. And don't forget Monsanto, who claims it's also sustainable (just like Fox News is "fair and balanced").
In other words, go ahead and use the word sustainable. It's been adopted, watered down, and all but ruined by the big guys, so nobody is going to think you're actually threatening them with real sustainability. But what if you used the word "agroecology" instead? Rumor has it that that's not so good.
More via a cool food-politics blog lavidalocavore.org
LaVidaLocavore is worth a bookmark for those inclined.
h/t Mark Bittman (The Minimalist) NY Times
Comments [0]