Niman to change name to Bank of America
Niman Ranch is in trouble (nothing they haven’t seen before) and the state of affairs is sad. http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/01/politics-of-the-plate-niman-ranch-crisis
When B of A gets 35 BILLION dollars from TARP, of which 4 B was handed out to Merrill Execs as bonuses and another 550mm in dividends to MER common shareholders, and a company like Niman can’t get a loan, the state of affairs is sad.
Interesting conversations around here at Marczyk’s as we discuss our plans for the coming year and beyond; we talk about sustainability in agriculture, and indeed sustainability of our business model. Eating right does cost more, but in fairness, it represents the true, sustainable cost of eating. In this country we see it as a luxury to eat the way we promote eating. As you know, in Europe no hormones are allowed in beef production…no wonder that beef is more expensive and eaten much less often and in smaller quantities…no wonder that heart disease and obesity are much less prevalent too.
3 years ago we were interviewed about the business by a local business writer. We said then “Our nation would be better served when we care which veggies the Jones’ were growing, instead of what they were driving. That would be something worth keeping up with!” Culturally, it’s more important what brand of car we drive than with the provenance of what we put in our bodies; that’s fucked up. And we’ll continue to be fucked up as long as every Tom, Dick and Harry claims ALL NATURAL!!! Look around, proclamations like this: “Our fresh and aged meats are all-natural and free of additives. We prove it with independent chemical testing…” are everywhere, assaulting our reality. All Natural, as defined by USDA, is a meaningless set of guidelines and only refers to the product after slaughter. It isn’t all natural the way we think of all natural. It’s a happy-horse-shit idea of all natural. All natural allows for the use of hormones and antibiotics in the production of beef and the use of growth-promoting antibiotics in pork and chicken. There is a huge difference in meat which has been raised with antibiotics in terms of water retention, flavor and texture.
As a nation we really believe that .99 pork is OK. It’s not. It’s wrong. It is bad for the farmers, it’s bad for the consumers, it’s bad for the environment, and it’s bad for the animals. Not sometimes—always. Try to buy non-commodity (ie non-CAFO) pork at one of the big markets or even at your favorite white-tablecloth restaurant—BTW, White Marble Farms ain’t it. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our environment to do the right thing.
Let’s all riot for reality: We want truth in advertising! We want a national solution to bringing affordable, sustainably raised meat to the table, not just our table, but the world’s! We want companies like Niman, who are trying to do the right thing, encouraged to grow, not cut off at the knees. We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again: vote for change with your wallet!
Monday, January 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I’m so glad we’re hitting on this topic. All too often I’m asked if this or if that is all-natural –all too often these folks are the direct result from the false, cavalier approach to food-advertising that we see and hear on a daily basis.
Educate yourselves, folks.
You choose that $.99/pound pork at the other stores over the $7.99/pound that we’re offering and you really are hurting the good guys over at Niman — humans and pigs alike.
Happy is the day when — among other things — as a society, we culturally shift our way of thinking in regards to food, its sustainabilty, and animal husbandry.
Hey, I hear CitiGroup (recipient of $45 billion in federal bailout money) decided to pass on that $50 million Dassault Falcon. I guess word got out that we weren’t too thrilled with how they’re spending OUR money. Kudos New York Post.
Bottom line, since we’re talking pigs here: 99 cent/pound pigs do not — I guarantee — get to root, roam, and romp like our Niman piggies. Vote for change with your wallet and stop supporting cruel animal husbandry; start supporting the good guys like Niman Ranch and all of their farmers who really do care.
Money talks. Educate yourself.
Do you hate poor people? I mean, really… some people can’t afford your style of food. Should they starve? I am thinking about the poor immigrant families I see at Wal-mart. Are they less deserving to live than your bourgeois, rich, liberal customers?
This post is full of hate, and I am very disappointed about your negative attitude regarding humanity.
I am all for local food and small businesses, but I don’t think we need to spew hatred toward those who have no other option than to go for cheap eats. It is only prosperity that allows us to indulge in “sustainable” products; please remember that.
In defense of the cheese dude(who I believe meant well), I think that it is absolutely permissible to shop on a budget and purchase cheaper product if that is what you have to do. However, one should be aware of how that product was made available to you.
The problem goes well beyond 7.99 or .99 pork. Why do people eat fresh tomatoes in the middle of the winter. Why is greater than 60% of our farm able land used to raise crop for slaughter animals(crop) instead of using it for a greater grain supply or more earth friendly fuels.(loosely qouted from the Omnivores Dilemma) There is more to it than the cost of the product.
Should you pay for .99 cent pork which supports a large corporation with little monetary tickle down and borderline ethical practices or a company that uses above average ethics, animal treatment practices and employ’s more, better compensated people?
Whether you shop at the supermarket or your local gourmet food shop I believe that it’s your responsibility to know your food. I mean, we spend the large majority of our waking life, planning, preparing and eating food. Sustainability is not only a reference to the methods and practices used to derive a product, but it is a lifestyle and a state of awareness. Something that plays such a large roll in our life should always be an indulgence.
Whether you buy the $99/pork or not understand why you should buy 7.99pork. It is our social responsibility as citizens to question, criticize and understand the larger picture that faces our nation and world.
Can i just say…? - word
I love this blog post. I don’t have very much money but what I do have I spend on quality food products.
I think “servlet” is the a hater.
remember:
only sustainable is sustainable
Indulging in sustainable products is what our forefathers did for thousands of years, not because they were bourgeois, rich, liberal customers at Marczyk, but because that’s the way things worked. It is our current “prosperity” that has distorted the real cost of food and deluded us into thinking that meat should be on the table every night of the week and vegetables should be irradiated for our safety. Back in the day people grew their own vegetables, raised their own chickens, fattened their own pig (singular: one pig for the whole year) and bought items they couldn’t provide for themselves from a close network of growers and artisans. In other words, they knew where their food came from, which is the standard that companies like Niman (and Marczyk) are trying to reintroduce to the American table. It’s not an elitist agenda, but rather one that’s dedicated to rebuilding food networks, reducing waste and pollution, strengthening local economies, and providing quality foods to the community.
If 7.99/lb pork is not affordable, starving is not the only alternative. Limit your pork consumption- use it sparingly in a soup or enjoy a Sunday pork roast like our grandparents- or just delete pork all together from your diet. Use beans and rice as a protein substitute. Both are available at .99/lb, and a pound of each makes an insane amount of food. Poor immigrant families can certainly attest to that.
I agree with a number of the comments in the original article, as well as some of my fellow commenters - however one thing that is overlooked (especially by ’servlet’) is that eating meats, or at least America’s dependence on meats, is the major overarching problem. Being at the top of the food chain, and eating high on the food chain, delivers much less ‘quality of energy per dollar input’ than eating lower on the food chain. The BEST thing that all of us can do, and especially the less financially fortunate, is to endeavor to eat LOWER on the food chain as a matter of practice. You want to save the environment and be healthier? Eat more spinach and less pork to start with - the nutritional value and energy efficiency delivered per calorie is like 90% better by eating a couple of tiers lower. You want to save the environment? Eat less meats and ‘closer to the soil.’
Government has long subsidized CAFO’s as a means to increase not only animal products production, but as a means to increase the production of CORN in this country - that’s what its all about. Read any label - there is likely a corn product in there somewhere - it has completely invaded our food system, and corn simply is one of the most unhealthy foods we can eat.
Finally, Pete’s passion in writing his original post tells me that he cares deeply about the people he is attempting to serve - and I would dare to say that he would care just as much for the financially needy person who comes in to buy beans and rice and spinach as the person that comes in to by the $29.00/lb fillet…They DO generally run an upscale shop, but that does not mean that the movement or the location is only catering to the rich - its that some people are too unwilling to see past the price tag and look at the deeper good that the ‘responsible food’ movement is all about.
its fantastic as your other blog posts : D, regards for posting .