green your world

For me, the most reassuring President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress was his assertion that:

“In this budget, we will…end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.”

In light of the disappointing nomination of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, the President’s renewed promise to overhaul the subsidy system is reassuring. As stated in the President’s new budget, the proposed funding:

Supports the implementation of a $250,000 commodity program payment limit. The payment limit will help ensure that payments are made to those who most need them.

To achieve this goal, the administration plans to…

Reduce direct Payments. As part of an effort to transition large farms from direct payments provided to owners of base acres to increased income from revenue derived from emerging markets for environmental services, the President’s Budget phases out direct payments over three years to farmers with sales revenue of more than $500,000 annually. Presently, direct payments are made to even large producers regardless of crop prices, losses, or whether the land is still under production. The program was introduced in the 1996 Farm Bill as a temporary payment scheduled to expire, but was included in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills. The President wants to maintain a strong safety net for farm families and beginning farmers while encouraging fiscal responsibility. Large farmers are well positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production, and providing clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. USDA will increase its research and analytical capabilities and conduct Government-wide coordination activities to encourage the establishment of markets for these ecosystem services.

So it seems not only will the largest farms no longer be subsidized to grow commodity crops, but they’re being encouraged to focus on renewable energy and environmental protection.

Of course, the president‘s speech wasn’t all good news for agricultural and environmental policies. When discussing renewable and clean technologies, President Obama again asserted that:

And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

Clean coal is a fantasy, and promoting it as an environmental solution is absurd. Fortunately, the Coen Brothers have just released a short film that debunks the clean coal myth more skillfully than I ever could:

“The American Dream, in my opinion, is in the toilet. It’s history. It’s gone. The American Dream is now how do we survive the future. It’s not having an eight bedroom home with eleven bathrooms. It’s not having the career and a lawn and all of the amenities. It is simply how do our children and our children’s children even have a chance at life.” – Michael Reynolds

Garbage Warrior wears its bias on its sleeve. A documentary about architect Michael Reynolds, the film is largely told from Reynolds’s point of view. It champions the architect’s perspective, it advocates his ideology.

The film’s not really a white-wash though. We see that Reynolds can be abrasive, dismissive of authority and that some of his designs are dysfunctional. We learn that there have been angry clients and lots of lawsuits.

To be clear though, with Garbage Warrior director Oliver Hodge is evangelizing on Reynolds’s behalf. Either you accept the designer’s belief that climate change, dwindling natural resources and overpopulation are potentially catastrophic or you don’t. If you accept Reynolds’s thesis, the film is a call to action, a blueprint for sustainable living. If not, well then Reynolds and his designs probably come across as sheer lunacy.

Though not really the focus of the documentary, it’s impossible to talk about Reynolds, or Garbage Warrior without discussing his creations, dubbed earthships. So what exactly is an earthship, anyway?

An earthship is essentially a passive solar home, situated for maximum southern exposure. The home’s south face is usually glass, and absorbs light from the sun. The earthship’s foundation, using principles of thermal mass, consists of old cans, plastic bottles and tires. The tires are filled with “rammed earth,” dirt tightly packed with a sledge hammer. When filled with as much mass as possible, the stacked tires are plastered in adobe.

Using these innovative techniques, earthship’s both capture and store the sun’s energy. Without heating or cooling systems, the homes traditionally remain a consistent 68° F, regardless of the external temperature.

Reynolds and a rebel gang of misfits and malcontents have been building these homes outside of Taos, New Mexico, where land is cheap and unconnected to the utility grid. Through the use of solar panels and grey water recycling systems, earthships can effectively remain off-the-grid, and free from utility payments.

Much of Garbage Warrior focuses on Reynolds as he battles county and state government to build earthship communities free from zoning laws. Flagrantly disregarding the law, he is stripped of his architectural licenses. And Taos County closes one of his earthship developments for code violations.

In the film, government employees claim that these were good faith efforts designed to keep the community safe. Other participants suggest that utility companies, threatened by the potential loss of revenue, successfully lobbied against Reynolds and his communities. I suspect one’s opinion about the state’s true motivations largely depends on one’s political philosophy. The film does offer a hint to the director’s opinion though.

After the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and subsequent tsunami that claimed more than 200,000 lives and displaced more than one million people, Reynolds and his team traveled to the Andaman Islands. Presented as a contrast to Reynolds’s fight with the New Mexican government, the Indian government is eager for any assistance and training that Reynolds can provide. Similarly, in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, Reynolds’s crew visit Mexico, building an earthship for victims there.

In the wake of calamity, governments are only too eager for sustainable alternatives, forgoing bureaucracy to get earthships built as quickly as possible. But Reynolds’s point is that we’re all facing disaster. His mission is to build as many of these homes as possible, before we all run out of time.

I thought about Reynolds this morning as I read that Nicholas Gotelli, a professor at the University of Vermont, was invited to a debate with creationists from the ironically named Discovery Institute. Gotelli responded that:

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

I mention this because it reminds me of the inane pseudo-debate on climate change, in light of the potential perils we face. If we accept that catastrophic climate change has a basis in reality, with broad scientific support, it strikes me as insanity that we’d continue to simply go about our business as usual.

I have an enormous respect for former Vice President Al Gore, and the attention he’s brought to global warming with his film, An Inconvenient Truth (2006). But if you believe, as Gore does, as Reynolds does and as I do, that we are on the precipice, does it seem more intelligent to hypocritically rack up outrageous utility costs, as Gore does? Or does it make more sense fighting to build energy-independent housing, as Reynolds is doing?

Claiming that we face enormous challenge but ignoring potential solutions seems quite irresponsible to me. Garbage Warrior demonstrates that Reynolds is offering solutions, risking his reputation and livelihood to deliver them. Anything else is simply whistling past the graveyard.

“That’s the basis of our influence now, the fact that we’ve spent less on food. It’s America’s best kept secret. We feed ourselves with approximately 16 or 17% of our take-home pay. That’s marvelous. That’s a very small chunk to feed ourselves. And that includes all of the meals we eat at restaurants, all of the fancy doodads we get in our food system. I don’t see much room for improvement there, which means we’ll spend our surplus cash on something else.” – Earl L. Butz, 18^th United States Secretary of Agriculture

For good or for ill, in the United States today, much of our agricultural policy can be traced directly to Earl L. Butz. As Secretary of Agriculture from 1971-1976, Butz abolished the strategic grain reserve and shifted government crop subsidization policy to reward surpluses. Butz was also an advocate of monocropping, and encouraged farmers to plant their crops “from fencerow to fencerow.”

In addition to fostering corporate agriculture, these policies led to an abundance of inexpensive commodity crops, like corn and soy. Cheap corn gave rise to corn-fed livestock, and by extension cheaper meat. It also made high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) an affordable alternative to sugar.

In their documentary King Corn Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis explore corn’s ubiquitous place in the food chain. Beginning with a hair analysis demonstrating how much of their diet can be traced to corn, the recent college graduates decide on a radical next step.

Cheney and Ellis move to Iowa, rent an acre of land and spend the next year growing a crop of government subsidized corn. They plan to ultimately follow their crop as it makes its way through the food system.

King Corn is an unexpectedly sweet film. Though both Cheney and Ellis grew up in the east, each had ancestors from the same rural county in Iowa where they grow their corn. The story of corn is intertwined with a history of agriculture, personalized through their families’ biographies and interviews with distant relatives.

In the age of Michael Moore’s self-aggrandizing, gotcha documentaries, Cheney and Ellis treat their subjects with an abundance of respect. They have an obvious reverence for the family farmer. And, while they are clearly troubled by corn’s place in our diet, they don’t fault the farmers—many of them barely making ends meet—who grow the subsidized commodities.

In fact, I think that King Corn may be a bit too generous. By focusing their documentary on smaller farmers, Cheney and Ellis ignore the rise of corporate agriculture. And in neglecting the fact that the top 10% of growers receive 75% of agricultural subsidies, King Corn glosses over a major contributing factor to the corn in our diets. The conglomerates that are growing these monocrops are tied to the large companies that package corn-syrup sweetened processed foods and offer 99¢ corn-fed beef burgers.

I suppose Cheney and Ellis recognize that most advocacy works best from the ground up. In educating consumers about their food supply and the sheer quantity of corn-based foods being ingesting, they’ve provided the tools for people to modify their own diets.

Cheney and Ellis close the film with a simple action of their own, mostly a symbolic gesture, by purchasing the acre of land they’d rented for their experiment. Sure, it’s a futile effort, that will do nothing to curtail the pervasiveness of corn. Yet watching the two baseball fans play catch in their now fallow field made me smile.

Previously, I suggested that President Obama’s election was reason for cautious optimism regarding our nation’s food policy. But like the new president, I consider myself “an optimist, not a sap.”

As in all industries, corporate agriculture is filled with lobbyists who champion monied interests. Because there are no subsidy caps on crops, large corporate growers have been paid handsomely to grow raw-materials crops at the expense of food crops. Consider these sobering statistics from Reason:

“Ninety percent of all subsidies go to just five crops: corn, rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans. Two thirds of all farm products—including perishable fruits and vegetables—receive almost no subsidies. And just 10 percent of recipients receive 75 percent of all subsidies.”

And not only are fruits and vegetables virtually unsubsidized, but growers who receive subsidies for these raw-materials crops are prohibited by law from growing other, unsubsidized crops. “But what about corn?” you ask. “Surely that’s food, and not a raw material like cotton.”

While corn can be a food, it is fundamentally used as a raw material. According to statistics compiled in Wired Magazine, of the 602.3 billion pounds of non-export corn grown annually in the United States, 332.2 billion pounds, more than half, is used for feed. Another 179.2 billion pounds is used in ethanol fuels. High-fructose corn syrup, grain alcohols and plastic fibers each account for more corn production than sweet corn, the corn that we know as food. Sweet corn by the ear, canned or frozen, represents only 5.8 billion pounds of the annual crop, less than 1%.

Adding even more perspective, from 1995-2006, corn subsidies in the United States totaled $56.2 billion. The most frustrating aspect of these subsidies, particularly corn, is that they empower a food economy that is bad for our health.

Think about processed foods for a moment. Take a look at the food labels in your pantry. Have you noticed how many of these processed foods contain high-fructose corn syrup or soy lecithin? Is it an accident that the most common food additives are derived from the most heavily subsidized crops?

Now let’s consider fast food. Subsidization has made fast food incredibly cheap. It’s no coincidence that as we fall deeper into a recession that McDonald’s is doing booming business.

But what about the beef in those McDonald’s hamburgers? Cattle raised for fast-food burgers have systematically been moved off of grazing fields and into feed lots. Their diet has shifted from the grass their systems were designed to digest to corn feed. Both of these factors have let to the rise of antibiotics, which are seeping not only into fast food burgers, but also cheese and other milk products.

And now, there is scientific evidence of just how widespread corn feeding really is. Researchers studying the chemical make-up of fast food have discovered:

Corn tends to have more of this ¹³C than other plants. That telltale signature persists as the corn travels through the complex system that turns it into feed, which is consumed and processed by cattle to grow tissue. It continues after the animals are slaughtered and the meat is cooked. The result: 93 percent of the tissue that comprised the hamburger meat was derived from corn.

Building on this study, Johns Hopkins is now researching the impact of corn-based sweeteners and corn-fed ¹³C on human blood. We already know the impact of fatty foods and artificial sweeteners though. While a fast-food diet may be cheap, and therefore popular among lower-income households, it’s been linked to health problems like obesity and diabetes.

Proponents of a change in food policy, and a shift from the current system of subsidization, have used the recent presidential election to lobby the new administration for a radical shift in policy. I’ve already mentioned Michael Pollen’s open letter about food policy to the presidental candidates, Farmer in Chief. And in his New York Times op-ed piece, Nicholas Kristof advocates transforming the Department of Agriculture into the Department of Food, explaining:

A Department of Agriculture made sense 100 years ago when 35 percent of Americans engaged in farming. But today, fewer than 2 percent are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat.

Even slow-foods advocate Alice Waters has lobbied the president and first lady, urging them to select a White House chef focused on healthful, environmentally friendly cooking.

Not surprisingly, with Change We Can Believe In as a campaign slogan, Obama’s candidacy inspired food advocates to champion major reforms. Now that he’s President Obama and not candidate Obama, the radical shift in policy some were hoping for, if not expecting, hasn’t materialized.

The Obamas kept President Bush’s chef, insisting that Waters and her fellow advocates were misinformed about the quality of the White House menu. As for an end to subsidies, or a Department of Food? Obama selected Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa, as his Secretary of Agriculture. Iowa, of course, is a corn and soybean producing state. And Vilsack, as governor, was a tireless advocate of corn subsidies. Vilsack himself received subsidies from the USDA, to not grow crops, keeping his own farmland fallow.

All of which brings be back to my original point. I am optimistic about the potential for policy changes from the new administration. Real change, however, will come from consumers, or rather from non-consumers, who demand better choices, looking beyond the traditional supermarket choices. Purchasing whole foods over processed meals, buying locally grown produce from local farmers and selecting meat products from humanely raised livestock is the only effective way to send agribusinesses the message that their offerings are unacceptable.

Forget Change We Can Believe In and focus instead on Gandhi’s suggestion to embody the change we wish to see in the world.

The National Intelligence Council has published its Global Trends 2025 report, hypothesizing on the potential ramifications of current and projected trends. The preliminary assessment about our natural resources is, unsurprisingly, glum:

Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources—particularly energy, food, and water—raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.

So despite the fact that our president of the last eight years chose to do nothing to protect the world’s food water and energy supplies—instead putting a fox in every henhouse, refusing to reign in big oil and allowing polluting industries to self-regulate—the intelligence community actually weighs input from the scientific community:

Many scientists worry that recent assessments underestimate the impact of climate change and misjudge the likely time when effects will be felt. Scientists currently have limited capability to predict the likelihood or magnitude of extreme climate shifts but believe—based on historic precedents—that it will not occur gradually or smoothly. Drastic cutbacks in allowable CO₂ emissions probably would disadvantage the rapidly emerging economies that are still low on the efficiency curve, but large-scale users in the developed world—such as the US—also would be shaken and the global economy could be plunged into a recession or worse.

Hopefully the new administration will take seriously the stark warnings this report offers:

Experts currently consider 21 countries, with a combined population of about 600 million, to be either cropland or freshwater scarce. Owing to continuing population growth, 36 countries, home to about 1.4 billion people, are projected to fall into this category by 2025.”

Action on food security, energy independence, resource preservation and climate change are of critical importance. Hopefully President-elect Obama and his advisors act on such intelligence, unlike another president who has shown little interest in prophetic security briefings.

Frank Rich, writing in this morning’s New York Times, says:

On the morning after a black man won the White House, America’s tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy.

Our nation was still in the same ditch it had been the day before, but the atmosphere was giddy. We felt good not only because we had breached a racial barrier as old as the Republic. Dawn also brought the realization that we were at last emerging from an abusive relationship with our country’s 21st-century leaders. The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place—in cities all over America.

Had I not witnessed such scenes of revelry, I’d suggest that perhaps Mr. Rich was indulging in more than a bit of hyperbole. But watching ordinary Americans dancing in the streets, singing the national anthem, cheering, chanting and even weeping, I was personally reminded of the end of The Return of the Jedi, when the Emperor has finally been vanquished and the Republic restored.

I think it’s hard to overestimate how significant this win is. Come Inauguration Day, President-elect Obama’s team is preparing to overturn 200 executive orders signed by President Bush, many of them related to his administration’s blatant contempt for science.

I am optimistic right now because President-elect Obama comes across as conscientious and well-informed. He knows that we have serious problems, but also that we’re in this together. Take, for instance this comment about climate change, off-handedly cited in Newsweek’s post-election wrap-up (emphasis mine):

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, “I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I'm thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”

For me what makes Obama’s election so gratifying is that he understands the need for big solutions to complex problems—particularly in regard to climate change and sustainability—but that he is both deliberative and thoughtful in his decision-making process.

Take, for instance Michael Pollan’s recent letter about food policy to the presidental candidates, Farmer in Chief. In his thesis, Pollan reasons that the health of our food supply is a national security issue, and that the way we eat today is inexorably tied to a triumvirate of significant challenges; energy independence, healthcare and climate change.

When asked in a Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross, if either campaign had responded to the article, Pollan answered:

“Well, I haven’t heard from them personally, but one of the campaigns’ transition team did ask me through an intermediary if—you know the article is 8,000 words—could I prepare a one or two page summary for them. And my response to that was ‘Don’t you have staffers who do that?’

The reason I wrote 8,000 words is because that’s what I needed to tell the story. If I could have done it in one or two pages I would have.”

Pollan never indicates, and Gross never asks, which campaign requested the summary. But we now know that President-elect Obama has read the article, because he cites it in a Time Magazine interview with Joe Klein:

“I was just reading an article in The New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.”

And what was the McCain campaign’s response? Why derision of course:

“In a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign [responding to the interview], Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, called it ‘ludicrous to blame farmers for obesity and pollution.’

Said Grassley: “It shows that Sen. Obama doesn't have a very good foundation in American agriculture. And people in agriculture need to know that if Sen. Obama is going to get his ideas on agriculture from a professor at Cal-Berkeley, they should think twice about what they are voting for.”

So we had one candidate with an understanding of the complexity of our food system, and the effect subsidies have had both our environment and the types of crops that are produced. And we had another candidate who mocked thoughtful commentary on our intertwined energy, food and healthcare challenges in an effort to score cheap political points with farmers.

Thankfully, the more thoughtful candidate won. And I hope that, when inaugurated, President Obama consults with advocates for a variety of sustainability issues. I am heartened that Vice President-elect Biden has long been an Amtrak commuter, as well as its advocate.

I also hope that Obama will consult with former Vice President Al Gore about his climate change initiatives, and take seriously the challenge to create a new electric grid, based on renewable resources, within the next decade.

Now I know there are some who dismiss this goal as outlandish, economically unsound or even impossible, but as President Kennedy expressed when setting his 10-year timetable to reach the moon, we take on such challenges “…not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

Having evoked the Kennedy name, while it may only be a wild-eyed fantasy of environmentalists and tree-huggers, it is refreshing to hear Robert Kennedy, Jr. cited as a potential EPA head in an Obama administration.

As Kennedy realized back in 2003, President Bush has not only squandered a terrific opportunity to protect our natural resources over the last eight years, but has, in fact, exacerbated many of our problems.

While I expect that some of President Obama’s initiatives and appointments will disappoint me, and that congressmen—focused on re-election and the whims of special interests—will sometimes thwart progress, as will a conservative, pro-business judiciary, an understanding of our impact on the environment, and the consequences of our choices is an important first step.

I don’t think all of those reveling Americans were truly celebrating a libration, but rather, in a shared hope for the promise of tomorrow that this election, and specifically the Obama campaign, represent.

As a vegetarian, you get used to being called self-righteous and preachy. You come to expect that family, friends and dining establishments will somehow feel threatened by your choices, even when you suffer silently through their gleeful lack of accommodation for fear of being labeled self-righteous and preachy.

In that vein, it is somewhat amusing to see chef David Chang of momofuku, addressing himself as “Captain Fucking Pork Bun,” explain that even with the rising costs of meat production, “my restaurants still won't kowtow to vegetarians.” OK. Fine. Whatever.

I get commerce. Sell what you like. Obviously I won’t be eating at momofuku, but Chang’s the wunderkind darling of the foodie mags, and there are enough committed carnivores out there that he’s not going to go out of business by refusing to cook for vegetarians.

But does the guy have to be so damn smug about it? Especially when—acknowledging his depression and hypocrisy—Chang concedes that the rising cost of meat production require a necessary shift in our eating habits:

Let's allow these harsh new realities to force us to do something that Alice Waters has been advocating for decades: Let's finally embrace the truth that food is not something to be taken for granted. As a culture, we need to be more curious about where our food comes from. We need to buy from farmers who are trying to do things the right way. We need to think before we eat.

So Captain Fucking Pork Bun, while I’m sorry you’re a self-important—albeit wildly popular—drama queen, and that cooking without your beloved pork makes you feel like you’re kneeling and touching the ground with your forehead, it seems to me that some vegetarians are, in fact, “curious about where our food comes” from and tend to “think before we eat.”

The August 12^th Freakonomics column in The New York Times asked a quorum of experts to predict the future of the suburbs.

Kunstler’s view is predictably, but somewhat convincingly, bleak:

…American suburbia requires an infinite supply of cheap energy in order to function and we have now entered a permanent global energy crisis that will change the whole equation of daily life. Having poured a half-century of our national wealth into a living arrangement with no future — and linked our very identity with it — we have provoked a powerful psychology of previous investment that will make it difficult for us to let go, change our behavior, and make other arrangements.

Though, living in New Jersey, I also found Thomas E. Antus’s tongue-in-cheek predictions both reasonable and chilling. Antus, the administrator of Freehold Township, describes the state's future:

In 40 years I could see living in the world’s largest city, a megalopolis, extending from New York City to Philadelphia and engulfing all of New Jersey. New Jersey could change the state motto to “The Overdevelopment State.” As we already have more cars per square mile than any other state, we could change the shape of the license plates from a rectangle to the outline of a car.

This reminded me of something that I read a few years ago, that New Jersey is on the verge of a “permanent rush hour” as the state becomes even more densely populated. I can’t help but think of George Lucas’s Coruscant, only without the cool flying cars or the even cooler lightsabers. Unfortunately, the character of the government seems about the same.

The difference between Antus’s gridlocked megalopolis and Kunstler’s ghettoized ruins is dependent, I think, on whether we have in fact reached peak oil capacity, and whether the cost of oil will, again, dramatically rise.

If oil prices stabilize or continue to dip, the recent shift to smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles might be set back. Demand for mass transit will slide and Antus’s prediction of “a traffic light on every single corner,” may yet materialize.

Whether you subscribe to Kunstler’s dystopia, or Antus’s, I think Matthew Yglesias has it exactly right:

Rising gas prices and various other considerations have prompted this increased round of speculation on whether the suburbanization of America will reverse, but the right answer needs to take into account the fact that what policy choices we make will have a strong impact on the course of the future.

I know which candidate’s transportation and energy policies I’m more inclined to trust. Hint: It’s not the guy eager for a land war with Russia.

I think that this should probably be filed under “stating the blindingly obvious,” but when The New York Times runs a story which points out that…

In 1970, the average American ate about 16.4 pounds of food a week, or 2.3 pounds daily. By 2006, the average intake grew by an additional 1.8 pounds a week.

Among other things, that's an extra half pound of fat weekly - mostly from oils and shortening. That doesn't count the fat in the extra quarter pound of meat Americans now eat every seven days.

…is it remotely surprising to read of a new study which suggests that all U.S. adults could be overweight within 40 years?

While throwing out absolutes—like 100%—are probably exaggerated, two-thirds of all American adults are overweight today. And thanks to the western diet and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, things aren't likely to change for the better:

“Genetically and physiologically, it should be impossible” for all U.S. adults to become overweight, said Dr. Lan Liang of the federal government’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, one of the researchers on the study.

However, she told Reuters Health, the data suggest that if the trends of the past 30 years persist, “that is the direction we're going.”

Reading this reminded me of one of this summer’s great films, WALL·E. It may seem absurd to label a cartoon as prescient, but not only has the movie accurately pegged our disposable culture’s disregard for the environment, it seems to have nailed our future selves as well.

I don't think I could describe WALL·E’s frightening dystopia any better than Tobin Hack’s commentary on the film in Plenty. He calls our future selves:

…morbidly obese blobs who spend their monotonous days zooming heavily around on hovering easy chairs, watching private TV screens, and drinking meals-in-a-cup. They can’t walk, and have even forgotten how to interact physically with one another, raising the question of how they’ve been procreating for the past few centuries. Machines take charge of their every need to the point (possibly) of no return.

The movie does treat the future’s fatties with some measure of kindness—a choice I suspect was made to avoid alienating the crowds of overweight Americans watching the film whilst gobbling popcorn by the tub, washed down with their meals-in-a-cup reminiscent slurpees.

I think the reason the story works so well is that for a sci-fi cartoon, it comes across as credible. Apart from a few athletes and overachievers, if everybody is fat by 2048, what will we look like in Wall·E’s 22^nd century? How many additional pounds of food will be we devouring each week?

So, what do we do about it? How do we reverse the trend?

Personally, I like Michael Pollen’s advice: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Jonah Lehrer, at The Frontal Cortex draws attention to a new study, which links personal values to taste. Lehrer explains:

…subjects were asked to rate a variety of sausages. People who scored high on “social authority” - they believed it was important to support people in power - tended to label the “vegetarian” sausage as inferior, even when the vegetarian sausage was actually from a cow. Likewise, people who scored low on “social power values” tended to score the vegan sausage much higher than the beef sausage, even when they were actually eating meat. Instead of judging the food product on its merits, they ended up preferring the product that more closely conformed to their value system.

A few years ago, an acquaintance told me a similar story. His father was a food scientist who, in the early 1980s, conducted taste tests for meat substitutes at US shopping malls. Even when served real meat, masquerading as soy, tasters dismissed the food as artificial, and not at all meatlike.

I can relate. Before becoming a vegetarian, I can remember sitting in a Chinese restaurant, disdainfully prodding my tofu and broccoli with a fork. Conversely, I can still feel the sting of disappointment when—after finding a recipe for pork sausage and dutifully recreating the mixture of spices, but for a soy sausage lasagna—my sister disdainfully prodded my creation with her fork.

To be fair, the more processed a food, the easier it is to mimic the original flavor. Does any hot dog really resemble flesh? It’s much harder—though not impossible—to imitate gristle or skin.

So, while a soy sausage might be an objectively suitable meat sausage replacement—and certainly better for the environment—both foods are so highly processed they should be eaten sparingly, if at all.

The original study, authored by Michael W. Allen, Richa Gupta and Arnaud Monnier, can be found here.