This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
The rise of Ozempic is as much a story of American ingenuity as it is of our culture’s posture toward its food. For every excess pound Americans gain, the pharmaceutical industry is just a few steps behind, developing band-aid after band-aid for our crisis of chronic disease. Yet while our alarm bells only recently began sounding over the obesity epidemic and its cascade of related health issues, the roots of our disordered relationship with food run decades deeper, back to the <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/convenience-culture-crisis-how-second-wave-feminism-helped-make-america-sick">second wave</a> of feminism and the rise of a convenience-driven culture that ushered in mass dependence on ultra-processed foods. This deeper crisis is not one we can medicate ourselves out of: We are a nation that has deliberately forgotten how to feed itself.
Feeding America well is less about nostalgia than stopping a tangible, observable public health and environmental crisis. By now, data regarding our obesity, hypertension, and related deaths, diseases, and disorders saturates popular discourse almost too deeply to bear repeating, but the fact that our poor health has become a cliché doesn’t make it any less true. Much of this crisis, unsurprisingly, begins in the kitchen. The “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/garden/new-lost-generation-the-cooking-illiterate.html">cooking illiterate</a>,” a term coined by the New York Times, is reproducing faster than ever, with younger generations decreasingly likely to know how to cook. <a href="https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/food/do-millennials-really-not-know-how-to-cook-with-technology-they-dont-really-have-to">More than a quarter of millennials</a> say they couldn’t make a cake from a box mix, and <a href="https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/food/do-millennials-really-not-know-how-to-cook-with-technology-they-dont-really-have-to">under a third of 18-to-29-year-olds</a> say they feel “confident” in the kitchen. It isn’t an issue of free time, either; <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/america-addicted-food-delivery-takeout-plastics-coronavirus_n_5ed013eec5b64f10cb090b29">the COVID-19 lockdowns led to a spike in DoorDash and Uber Eats</a>, not a renaissance of home cooking.
Our obsession with convenience culture is not a coincidence. Rather, it’s the direct result of devaluing work such as homemaking, caregiving, and food preparation, traditionally women’s work, as lesser forms of work. This shift then combined with rising dual-income households to create a cultural and logistical void in domestic food production as households’ mothers entered the workforce. Industrial food companies were all too quick to rush into that void, seeking markets for post-WWII manufacturing capacity. Corporate interests aligned all too conveniently with the “you can have it all” ethos, promoting shelf-stable, processed foods as “freedom” from and “progress” beyond the home. This cultural transformation was hardly intentional; in many ways, it was barely even a conscious one. Nevertheless, markets picked up on our demonstrated preferences, and our homemade food was replaced by manufactured supplements that quickly became substitutes.
Industry replaced the family kitchen, filling a vacuum with promises that were too good to be true. Additives and preservatives were marketed as “science,” frozen and boxed meals were sold as “liberation,” and the rise of the microwavable dinners framed speed as ingenuity. Generational skills eroded as cooking, gardening, and food knowledge were outsourced, and food quality plummeted as additives, preservatives, artificial ingredients, refined seed oils, and industrial-scale commodity crops became dietary staples. Systems once centered around nourishment came to serve America’s new favorite god: efficiency.
With our food sequestered away in boxes and plastic, cobwebs began to grow around tables where we soon forgot how to commune. Feeding ourselves became a necessary evil rather than an excuse to socialize, exacerbating <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/16643">America’s declining social capital</a> along with its biomarkers. Rates of metabolic disease climbed along with the number of ingredients in our staple foods and our <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/youre-eating-out-of-season-and-its-costing-you-more-than-you-think">distance</a> — physical and cognitive — from our foods’ origins. Today, <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/children-struggle-to-name-common-vegetables-survey-shows-ctxv3z3kg?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqccnk_ELKc_OqByRR6uQ4YjzfobSGBhOu1floda0nEiqjZQMeW7GkMjReIAtDg%3D&amp;gaa_ts=6938c117&amp;gaa_sig=Y0jubow8RBDTeD5iIV-dOChvetUmJaIwJepvhCVvLAtwF0h5Ak-jYAqVLkYec1YGKuNXw48aCzhmDBdEbOSXjA%3D%3D">less than a third of children aged 7-11</a> can identify a beet or a zucchini, though few kids have the same struggle recognizing logos for McDonald’s or M&amp;M’s. The decline in familiarity with food may have begun with the decline in farming and cooking, but it has accelerated over just a few generations to a full-fledged outsourcing of our culinary and nutritional autonomy.
The consequences of our predicament are difficult to overstate. Our country is now unsuccessfully battling parallel rises in childhood chronic disease, allergies, autoimmune disorders, and metabolic illness, and our decline in food literacy means that children who don’t know where food comes from can’t learn from their equally clueless parents. While the biotech industry may be able to patch up some of our health issues, it cannot heal a sick culture. Our loss of connection to food is also an atrophy of cultural rituals, among them shared meals, family identity, and an intergenerational knowledge transfer we cannot rebuild with an injectable, pill, or patch. All of this is underscored by our deteriorating relationship with the land we call home, as industrial food production has increased our land degradation, reliance on synthetic inputs, and biodiversity loss, reinforcing a cycle where the cheapest calories are the least nutritious and most environmentally damaging.
Making America healthy again will require rewiring the broken systems that have made her sick. We need to fix the regulatory frameworks that make it easier to produce processed food at scale than to support small farms, diversified agriculture, or nutrient-rich perishables. We need to address the permitting barriers currently hindering regional food processing, regenerative farm expansion, and the infrastructure needed for local food systems. Most of all, we need to accept that a healthy America requires aligning food policy with human health and environmental integrity — not just agricultural output — and we need to write agricultural policy that reflects that. Ultimately, success would look like an inversion of the industrial food supply chain that prioritizes export capacity and shelf-stability over nutrient density and ecological health.
And yet policy alone cannot save us. The real work begins in the home, with the deeply pro-human and pro-family pursuits of reclaiming shared meals and rebuilding a relationship with what we eat. Promoting food literacy, normalizing cooking as a basic life skill, and restoring the dignity of the farm and the kitchen are all efforts that will need to begin from the ground up, not an executive order or a farm bill. Restoring agency over the food that sustains our bodies and communities is a project that will take several generations and, if we’re successful, save several more.
America cannot be healthy again until families, communities, and institutions reclaim the ability to produce, prepare, and understand real food. We’re mistaken to believe that the fallout we’re enduring is merely biological, and equally mistaken to believe its solutions are merely political. Our country’s health is a project capable of nourishing a nation starving socially, culturally, and environmentally, if we choose to pursue it. Restoring it promises both the work and the reward of a lifetime.
***
Danielle Butcher Franz is CEO of the American Conservation Coalition. As a founding member of ACC, Danielle has dedicated her career to building bridges between traditional conservative values and environmental advocacy.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

GettyImages-1974650688

The Weight Loss Shot Is Rising, But What Happened To The American Family Table?

Feminism

Food

Upstream

In some ways, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is to the Democratic party what candidate Trump was to the Republican Party in 2016. Both President Trump and Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) appeal to their base for their refusal to conform to political norms, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see the appeal in the newly elected congresswoman: She is a bright and articulate young woman who is clearly driven and passionate about politics. She is inclusive, goes after bold new ideas, and isn’t afraid to diverge from the establishment of her party. AOC’s unconventional approach has allowed her to quickly push her agenda to the forefront, the pinnacle of which seems to be an environmental and economic stimulus package known as the Green New Deal.
AOC refuses to settle for the status quo and is refreshingly transparent for someone whose chosen career path is within the political realm. Her youth, coupled with her energetic approach, shines through as quite authentic. Ocasio-Cortez provides a peek at what the Democratic Party can hope to be in the future, and by all accounts, she is a rising star, especially as the millennial generation begins to establish their political influence. Her rising profile is heightened by her Green New Deal advocacy.
Ocasio-Cortez’s charisma has garnered her much popularity and attention, awarding her a platform that is unusually large for someone with such little experience in Washington. After all, Washington is well known as a city in which you must “pay your dues” before amassing any sort of political capital. Still,
In a <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf">resolution</a> introduced Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez’s plan can more accurately be categorized as an outline. One highlight boasts that ten years from &#8220;the start of execution of the plan,&#8221; the country will be 100% dependent on renewable energy sources — namely wind and solar. Despite the promising advances these technologies have made in recent years, they are still not prepared to solely bear the responsibility of America’s power grid. While it is difficult to estimate the price of this transition over ten years, a 2010 Heritage Foundation <a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/renewable-electricity-standard-what-it-will-really-cost-americans">study</a> noted that a transition to 100% renewable energy would likely cost $5.2 trillion over two decades; and it neglects to include the full variety of other clean energy sources, including hydro and nuclear, that we could use. Make no mistake, solar energy in particular has potential, but it is not yet at a point where it can meet our energy needs both cost effectively and reliably.
This plan omits other important clean energy sources that are capable of supplying power on a larger scale, as opposed to the (currently) intermittent energy we receive from wind and solar. Aside from that, in order to appropriately scale up renewable energies to match our consumption needs, the United States would need to immediately produce more windmills and solar panels, both of which have a high <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/">carbon cost</a> during production. The unspoken and unintended consequence is a drastic increase in carbon emissions that, even if temporary, is counterintuitive to helping the environment.
Another standout in the Green New Deal is the section that indicates a mandate <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jxUzp9SZ6-VB-4wSm8sselVMsqWZrSrYpYC9slHKLzo/edit">requiring</a> an upgrade of &#8220;every residential and industrial building&#8221; for &#8220;state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort, and safety.&#8221; This proposal seems not only wholly unrealistic but absolutely irresponsible. The cost of such a requirement is far above what most middle and low-income families can afford. While Representative Ocasio-Cortez claims to be fighting for marginalized communities and low-income families, her proposed policies will hurt them the most.
In 2016 alone, the United States distributed over <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/21/federal-funding-for-low-income-energy-assistance-highest-in-new-england-upper-midwest">$3.3 billion</a> in energy assistance programs. These costs are based on energy readily available to low-income households, primarily oil and coal. Removing these cost-efficient alternatives to renewable energy ensures that prices will increase; and as the inescapable cost of energy rises, one can only begin to wonder how lower to middle-class families will be able to not only keep up with the additional energy costs but also afford new home energy systems as appears to be mandated in the GND.
In terms of stimulating the economy, this resolution is sure to recognize promising a &#8220;&#8216;just transition&#8217; for all workers, low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution, and other environmental harm.&#8221; Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of how workers in traditional energy fields will transition after they lose their jobs due to the government’s interference in the energy market.
Lastly, Ocasio-Cortez seems proud to tout that her grand plans to introduce a marginal tax rate where the nation’s wealthiest citizens will be subject to rates as high as 70%. She wasted no time during her recent 60 minutes interview with Anderson Cooper to proclaim that it is time the wealthiest citizens begin &#8220;paying their fair share in taxes.&#8221; Little context is provided in terms of exactly who qualifies as America’s &#8220;wealthiest,&#8221; or at what income level the 70% rate would take effect. However, as noted by the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants-higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that-raise/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.c3ea74454ede">Washington Post</a>, if one is to assume, as the Congresswoman previously mentioned, that the bar is set at households pulling in upwards of $10 million annually, the 70% marginal tax rate will only affect .5% of American households. These 16,000-or-so tax filers earning above $10 million annually constitute the upper half of the 1% so often cited by the Left when it comes to increasing tax revenue for new programs such as Medicare for all and free college tuition. What many on the Left fail to recall is that raising taxes does not necessarily cause increased tax revenue, as evidenced by President Carter generating only <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762">52%</a> of the tax revenue that President Reagan was able to in his last year.
All of this only reiterates that the Green New Deal still has no real policy behind it. It is a non-binding, shell of a proposal whose only purpose as of now is to virtue-signal environmental policies that are unproven to have any positive effect on the environment, while collecting more taxes from the upper class and further dividing the middle and lower classes. This is precisely the reason President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords — it is not morally right to spend taxpayer money on goals that have no follow-through and are ineffective for the environment.
All in all, the Green New Deal is not politically viable. It is a brilliant P.R. stunt, lacking in substance but appearing to give the progressive base everything they could want. When it inevitably goes nowhere, it will be all too easy to blame Republicans for lack of cooperation. While AOC’s heart and intentions may be in the right place, her policy misses the mark. Were she not so intent on making a splash, perhaps the newly elected representative would schedule meetings with those who may not agree with her politically but share her concern for environmental and social justice. While she may embrace being called a radical, her radical policies will be poorly received by both those in office and every-day Americans.
The environment is a subject which should never have been made partisan. Reaching across the aisle and finding solutions that sit well with both sides is not only crucial — it is entirely realistic. One example is the House of Representatives’ bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, which I would strongly encourage AOC to join. I am confident she will find several elected officials eager to work with her on bipartisan alternatives, including an idea like <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/republican-introduces-technology-neutral-tax-credit-bill-to-boost-energy/543443/">energy innovation tax credits</a>, which reward market-driven innovation and encourage the development of cutting-edge technologies, such as battery storage. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of sustainably shifting our energy portfolio to renewables.
Should Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Democratic colleagues decide to take the environment seriously and seek substantial action on climate, conservation, and energy, I encourage them to sit down with their Republican counterparts and find a compromise that is in the best interest of all Americans.

Menu

Danielle Butcher

The Weight Loss Shot Is Rising, But What Happened To The American Family Table?

BUTCHER: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is All Talk On The Environment