No one logged in. Log in

Newsletter - October 20, 2011

20-Oct-2011

The Alleged Farm News
Issue Number 19 | October 20, 2011

This Week's Share
Chinese broccoli, Cilantro, Garlic, Kossak kohlrabi, Lettuce, Onions, Pepper, Ancho or Hungarian Wax hot pepper, Rutabaga or radishes, Parsley, Satina potatoes, Tatsoi

I was listening to a story on the radio recently about the NRDC's report on Indian Point nuclear power plant. NRDC would like to see the plant shut down, an opinion the plant's operator, Entergy, does not share for some reason. In fact, they have applied for a 20-year extension to their operating license.

This is the second-to-last delivery of the season. We will hand out the final boxes next Thursday. Thank you for being a part of our CSA in 2011, and we hope you will rejoin for next season (you will receive details on how to sign up--and get a discount--soon).

One of the questions opponents of the plant have to answer is where we could come up with the electricity to replace what the plant produces--enough to power 2 million households at present. The environmental groups opposing Indian Point argue that we already have a certain amount of extra energy available, and that we could make up any shortfall by building wind and solar energy facilities. That sounds good, but whether or not it is true I cannot say. However, the reporter helpfully found someone to tell us that is not true: the head of the New York Affordable Reliable Energy Alliance. According to this man, New York has less sunshine than sunnier places and less wind than windier place, thus making it unsuitable for alternative energy projects (sadly, he failed to address the suitability of having a nuclear plant near New York City or whether you would prefer to have your photovoltaic panel or your reactor malfunction).

I understand providing a contrary opinion is standard practice in journalism, and I am willing to grant there may be valid reasons to question our ability to replace a nuclear plant with wind

Vegetable notes

Chinese broccoli (the bunched green with large stems and little florets) is like broccoli rabe, but without the sometimes off-putting bitterness, and the stems have a better, aspargus-like texture. You can just steam or saute it and eat it plain, but I prefer it with a little hot pepper, vinegar, soy sauce and garlic.

The tatsoi (the head of dark green, spoon-shaped leaves) are an Asian green akin to bok choi. You can cook them as you would bok choi (or Chinese broccoli) or add the raw leaves to a salad.

We have not had a particularly lovely autumn so far (unless you happen to like bleak, wet weather). As you may have noticed, it has rained a lot and frequently. I am beginning to wonder when we will get the garlic planted. As miserable as it has been at times, though, we have had remarkably little frost. Which is why we are still picking peppers in the latter half of October. If this weather keeps up the eggplants will start producing again (they have put on some new growth in the past couple of weeks).

turbines and solar cells. But I would like to have some idea who is offering the contrary view. AREA is hardly a well known group. It was not clear if I was listening to the reasoned opinion of an energy expert or the self-serving objections of a lobbyist--though I could guess. And thirty seconds of internet research served to confirm my guess. The fact that AREA is funded by energy producers--among them, of course, Entergy--does not in and of itself rule out the validity of the argument against renewable energy. It does, however, suggest a level of bias that ought to make reporters hesitate before turning to AREA for comment--and acknowledge that bias if they do.

Corporations seem to understand, however, that many reporters will not note this bias. So this country is full of institutes and alliances with convoluted, often populist names that exist to espouse corporate views as if they were legitimate opinions and facts, and not simply expressions of the single-minded financial self-interest that we consider fundamental to modern capitalism.

Corporations can, of course, speak for themselves. But they are so busy creating and defending their brand images as purveyors of everything that nourishes and enriches all our lives that they do not want to express opinions. Plus they understand that we will view whatever they say about any issue related to their profitability with a touch of skepticism. So they create groups to do it for them.

Exxon-Mobil tell you it cares about your future. The Petroleum Institute wants you not to worry about, believe in or do anything about (and especially not do anything about) global warming--at least not until Exxon-Mobil has wrung every last drop of oil from the earth. ConAgra tells you it "believes in the power of great food" that "gives you less to worry about and more to look forward to." The Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute wants you to know that organic food is bad for you and the planet.

Fortunately, nobody pays much attention to the Hudson Institute's bogus food arguments. Well, John Stossel did a piece on ABC several years ago promoting those arguments, but then he had to offer an on-air apology when it was revealed he had falsified the supporting evidence. That, of course, has not stopped the Hudson Institute's corporately financed crusade to save us from healthy food. But we are learning to care a lot more about the source of our food--where it come from, how it was produced, who produced it, and what it actually is (the basic rule being that when you don't understand what it you should not eat it)--and the desire for that knowledge makes us far less susceptible to the deliberate obfuscations of the food industry's shills.

Unfortunately for ConAgra it also makes us far less susceptible to the expensively promoted appeal of Chef Boyardee and Kid Cuisine and Slim Jims, which is precisely why they support the folks trying to muddle our understanding. The last thing corporate America needs is educated consumers. They would much rather keep us on a steady diet of their point of view--their point of view being that we should want what they make at the price they charge and leave them alone to make it as they see fit. But the time is ripe for us to stop swallowing this. It is as unnatural, unhealthy, and unfulfilling as a Slim Jim.

Slim Jims have to come with a list of ingredients (which makes one wonder why anyone eats them). Organizations like the Hudson Institute or AREA do not need to reveal what goes into their opinions. But if you know who they are--and journalists who rely on their quotes should make that clear--you can begin to get an idea of what they are cooking up. That is not to say you must reject everything they say. Even corporations can be right sometimes. You should just make sure you know what you are taking in--whether it is a meat-like snack stick with an indefinite shelf life or an argument in favor of nuclear power or even some big green Kossak kohlrabi you get in a box from a farm in Easton.

Comment

Go Back