Global Food, Global Crisis

Grist reviews Paul Roberts' new book, The End of Food. The passage below, by Tom Philpott, speaks to the historical white elephant sitting among the foodies, locavores and even animal-rights advocates (although, as someone with intimate knowledge of a factory farm, I can hardly argue that there isn't room for a more humane food system):

But Robert's historical frame drives home a key point that his predecessors didn't quite nail down: In many ways, modern food production is an attractive response to centuries of chronic food insecurity. Who wants to spend nearly all of one's income on food, and rely on sugared tea as a key source of calories, as did the 19th-century British working class? Who wants to spend hours a day preparing food as peasant women did, not by choice but for survival? By the dawn of the 20th century, people quite understandably longed for food security and freedom from drudgery. The modern food system -- for all of the new problems it created -- largely met those desires, at least in the United States and Europe. The locavore movement will eventually have to confront them head on.

Philpott also writes that Monsanto is selling its rights to make Posilac, or rGBH...

Posilac had become increasingly marginal to Monsanto's profit growth, which derives mainly from its dominance of the genetically modified corn, soy, and cotton seed markets.

Vanity Fair's terrifying investigation of Monsanto: Harvest of Fear.