Sunday, August 18, 2013

A Sampling of Commons Projects All Over



From Bangkok to Grand Rapids to London
The projects profiled below represent a wide array of individuals and organizations working to build community and create a better future for all. With a focus on co-creation and developing a sense of belonging within communities at the local level, these initiatives showcase the commitment and creativity required for establishing a commons-based society. Read on to learn about The Rapidian, a community-driven, hy- perlocal news source located in Grand Rapids, Michigan; 350.org, a global, grassroots movement dedicated to solving the climate crisis; and more.

The Oregon Commons, a volunteer-driven nonprofit organization, inspires appreciation, stewardship and advocacy for the Oregon commons—“the gifts of nature and civilization shared across generations.”

City Repair Project, also based in Oregon, employs artistic and ecologically oriented place making strategies. City Repair inspires people to understand themselves as part of a larger community, participate in decision-making that shapes their future, and realize their creative potential.

Down the cost in Point Reyes Station, California, West Marin Commons aims to enhance, protect, and illuminate our shared environment. The organization creates space for spontaneous sociability and community activities, including sharing rides, garden produce, tools, and “household stuff.”

The Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, based in Gloucester, Mas- sachusetts, works to restore enduring marine systems. If we truly care about the health of our oceans, does it matter how, where, and when we fish? NAMA strongly believes it does.

Across the Atlantic, The London Orchard Project plants community orchards in London’s unused spaces. The initiative has many local benefits, including the promotion of fruit production within communities, the greening of London’s urban environment, the creation of wildlife habitats, increased biodiversity within city limits, and improved food security. It also helps Londoners rediscover the simple pleasure of eating organic fruit grown close to home.

[editor: Hard to believe Commons Magazine consistently omits mention of the cultural miracle that is the Transition Movement - a real leader worldwide and the group that initiated nut and fruit tree planting.]

350.org, founded by author Bill McKibben, is a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. 350.org is well known for its online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public actions—all of which are led from the bottom up by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries.

On the hyperlocal level, The Rapidian is a news source powered and published by citizen journalists in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It provides tools, training, platforms, and support to empower neighborhood residents to report community news from the inside out. The Rapidian promotes inclusiveness, civility, and ethical reporting as the foundation for increasing civic engagement.

The School of Commoning utilizes the global communication and information sharing capacities of the Internet. As an online resource for people who want to learn about the commons, the School offers a bank of resources and educational programs to commoners around the world.

Located in Sacramento, California, the Sol Collective provides arts, cultural, and education programming that supports social justice and empowers youth. The Collective maintains a brick and mortar center, which often hosts art exhibitions, multimedia workshops, apprentice/ mentorship programs, and community forums.

Occupy Sandy illustrates the power of commons solutions—without the burden of bureaucratic red tape—in times of crisis. An impressive, nimble, and well-coordinated relief effort to distribute resources and volunteers to help neighborhoods affected by Hurricane Sandy, Occupy Sandy is a grassroots emergency management response formed by a co- alition of individuals from Occupy Wall Street, 350.org, recovers.org, and interoccupy.net.

In Detroit, Michigan, there is another locus of commoning in re- sponse to crisis. The People’s Water Board maintains that “water is life” and a human right. The Board advocates that all people should have ac- cess to clean and affordable water.

The Greening of Detroit’s Openspace program is another Detroit-based effort that aims to transform some of the 100,000 vacant lots in the city into places that contribute to the fabric of the community. The program helps residents turn lots into community gardens, fruit orchards, market gardens, pocket parks, and native plant gardens.

The local arts community is yet another key group making a commons-based contribution in Detroit. The projects are numerous and inspiring and include Detroit Artists Market, 555 Creative Community, and Community Arts Partnerships Detroit, to name but a few.

Restore/Restory, is an interactive story map that gives a people’s history of the Cache Creek Nature Preserve in Woodland, California. The project tells the diverse stories of California’s peoples, traditions, and re- lationship to the land.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, the Vital Aging Network promotes self-determination, civic engagement, and personal growth for people as they age through education, leadership development, and opportunities for connection.

CoCo Coworking, also based in the Twin Cities, is a place where independent workers, small businesses and corporate workgroups can gather to share ideas, team up on projects and get work done.

The Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance provides innovative strategies, working models and timely information to support environmentally sound and equitable community development. Don’t miss their recent TEDx Talk: Why We Can’t Shop Our Way to a Better Economy.

And in an effort to engage thinkers around the world in conversation about economics and the commons, the Commons Strategies group, the Heinrich Böll Foundation and Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation are hosting three Commons Deep Dive workshops—two of which already took place during October and November—in Mexico City, a city near Paris, and Bangkok. These Deep Dives will serve as preparatory events for a major international conference called “The Economics of the Commons” to be held in Berlin next May.

– ON THE COMMONS TEAM

Editor: This is the final chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

One Town’s Unexpected Economic Renaissance

                            COMMONER                             


Hardwick, Vermont embraced agricultural projects based on sharing

Here is a small town that thrives on a kind of agriculture where scale matters, stakeholders collaborate, and, in most cases, ownership has more to do with stewardship than it does with possession. Community members know each other by name and value civic engagement. Young people who moved away for bigger and “better” opportunities now flock home, seeking jobs and dedicating themselves to community improvement. This town, Hardwick, Vermont, embodies the spirit of the commons in so many ways—but it wouldn’t be that way without the vision and drive of Tom Stearns, an ardent commons advocate and the founder of High Mowing Organic Seeds.

Over his years working in the seed business, Stearns has come to understand that, even more so than the land he works, the seeds themselves are a special kind of commons. The vegetable seeds we have now, he says, are vastly different than the seeds that existed one hundred years ago, and today’s seeds will assume new qualities in the future. That’s partly why privatization and commodification have become commonplace in the seed industry. Corporate giants have denied public access to information about our seed resource because “when you control seeds, you control a lot,” says Stearns.

But the High Mowing team engages and interacts with everyone who uses seeds, including farmers and gardeners, plant breeders at universities, other seed companies, and soil scientists. They do this in an effort to bring the seed community’s collective wisdom to bear on how to develop new seed varieties, how to make seeds available to consumers, and how to promote them as a critical element in building healthy food systems. By encouraging this knowledge sharing, High Mowing empowers the whole community to engage in a ten-thousand year old practice of food provision that is vital for the future. They are framing seed saving as a commons‐based solution.

Stearns is also a co-founder of the Center for an Agricultural Economy, a Hardwick‐based nonprofit that coordinates regional food system activity. Among many other contributions to the community, the non-profit just purchased the old town common. Until recently, no one had hope that Hardwick, an aging granite-mining center, would ever recover from the mining industry collapse. The town common had been neglected since the thirties, but members of the Center for an Agricultural Economy saw its potential and purchased the sixteen acres in the heart of Hardwick. Today, Stearns describes all kinds of activity planned for the property, including an educational farm and community garden.

The combined effect of these many assorted commons solutions is a small town renaissance no one could have expected in Hardwick. Stearns describes countless new economic opportunities growing up around healthy food, ecological awareness, and value‐added agriculture. There are new jobs—good jobs—at High Mowing and elsewhere.

The rural “brain drain” is reversing in this area, as smart young people who moved away are coming home. People are once again running for town select boards and school boards. “People are actually competing [for those positions] because they want to have a voice,” Stearns says.

“It’s really cool.” When asked about the secrets to this success, Stearns speculates that Vermont’s size has something to do with it. Towns operate on a “human-scale,” and political figures are readily accessible (you might event spot the governor walking down the street, he says). As a result, people sense their ability to make an impact—they are not just one among millions. To Stearns’s mind, the hopelessness that comes from feeling inconsequential is one of the main obstacles to creating commons-based societies in other places today.

—JESSICA CONRAD

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, August 4, 2013

How Indigenous Forms of Governance Can Improve Our Modern World


Ardoch Algonquin Chief Robert Lovelace helps us re-imagine society’s relationship to nature

Indigenous cultures are complex knowledge systems that utilize energy, food security, transportation and communications in balance with natural systems. Understanding how indigenous economies, as well as social and cultural systems work can help bend the curve against the prospects of social, environmental and economic failure.

Present governance structures conform little to environmental or ecosystem realities. For the most part, political boundaries were created to serve colonial settlement, resource extraction and industrial manufacturing while denaturing ecosystems and limiting environmentally appropriate governance. Faced with overexploitation of resources, ecosystem degradation, contamination of soils and water and climate change, the people of North America need to re-imagine how we connect to the earth. Ecosystem appropriate governance is a step in the right direction. We also need to ensure economic, social and cultural practices work with natural replenishment cycles rather than against them.

Language is the “signature” of culture. How we speak to one another, how we describe and discuss the world in which we live, determines our success in relating to the world. Indigenous knowledge systems are reflections of empirical interaction with the earth, rational discovery, symbolic imagery and social reinforcement, directed toward a deep understanding of the local. Indigenous languages are verb-based rather than using nouns as the foundation for communication as we do in English. If we simply want to acquire “things,” then the structure of our present language works fine. If we want to relate with the world, make appropriate ecological choices, and rebuild collapsing environments then we need to learn, think and create in action words. We need to live within dynamic eco-natural processes to live well together.

– ROBERT LOVELACE

Professor Robert Lovelace, retired Chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, has decoded elements of aboriginal governance that are key to re-indigenizing the commons. Lovelace presented part of his work at the Great Lakes Commons Gathering. Excerpted from “Kosmos magazine.”

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Take Back the Streets


How one Dutch neighborhood made streets safer for the whole world

Traffic calming has swept the world over the past 20 years. It’s based on the rather simple idea that cars and trucks don’t have exclusive ownership of our streets. Streets are shared commons that also belong to people on foot and bicycles, in baby strollers and wheelchairs. Reminding motorists of this fact, traffic calming uses design features such as narrowing roads, adding speed bumps or elevating crosswalks to slow traffic and assert pedestrians’ right to cross the street.

This idea has altered the literal landscape of urban life in the Northern Europe, North America and the rest of the world as people move about their communities with more ease and pleasure.

The origins of this ingenious idea trace back to Delft, Netherlands, where residents of one neighborhood were fed up with cars racing along their streets, endangering children, pets and peace of mind. One evening they decided to do something about it by dragging old couches, coffee tables and other objects out into the roadway and positioning them in such a way that cars could pass but would have to slow down. Police soon arrived on the scene and had to admit that this project, although clearly illegal, was a really good idea. Soon, the city itself was installing similar measures called woonerfs (Dutch for “living yards”) on streets plagued by unruly motorists.

Invented by neighbors in Delft, Netherlands, who were tired of cars speeding down their street, traffic calming is now spreading throughout the world.

One can only imagine the response of city officials if these neighbors had meekly come to city hall to propose the idea of partially blocking the streets; they would have been hooted right out of the building. But by taking direct action, they saved their neighborhood and improved everyday life in cities around the world.

—JAY WALLJASPER
Photo by Walk Eagle Rock under a Creative Commons license from flickr.com.

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

How New York City Kept Its Drinking Water Pure


. . . and saved billions of dollars
Beginning in the 1830s, the City of New York created a water system generally considered to have no equal in the world. Generations of city leaders chose to go far north and west of the City, to find rural environments that would provide pure, pristine water.

But in the 1980s, as the economics of industrialized agriculture began to undermine the economic vitality of the small family farms that dotted the Catskill mountains, things began to change. Catskill farmers, in a desperate attempt to remain economically viable, began industrializing their own farm operations. Chemical fertilizer use increased, erosion accelerated, and pathogen contamination began to grow. Farmers also began selling off the forested portions of their land for environmentally damaging exurban development.

By the end of the 1980s, public health specialists were publicly stating the City would have to substantially increase the treatment of its drinking water source. The costs for the advanced treatment were estimated to be $4 billion to build and $200 million annually to operate. This would double the cost for water in New York City, with major adverse impacts on low-income families.

Thus, when I became Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and Director of the New York City Water and Sewer system in early 1990, determining if there was any alternative to this was at the top of a very crowded agenda.

However, unlike nearly the entire American water industry and its regulators, both of which were dominated by civil and public health engineers who thought almost exclusively in facility construction terms to solve water quality problems, my background was in management reform, public finance and environmental policy, particularly land use.

My new management team and I were quickly convinced that allowing Catskill drinking water purity to deteriorate and then spending massive sums to clean it up was not the ideal option. The team’s philosophy was that a good environment will produce good water. And that made investing in the environment a smart and profitable investment for New York City.

It took eighteen months of mutual work between the City and the Catskill farming community but, in the end, using concepts that have now come to be called ecosystem services, an innovative and far reaching agreement was crafted.

Operationally, the question became what environmental investments should the city make. Some, such as adding to the publicly held land in the watershed— particularly critical lands threatened by development—along with stream corridor restorations and better stewardship of city owned lands were obvious. But that did not answer how to control non-point source pollution on privately held farmlands and other rural landscapes.

The City began to organize an unprecedented program of regulatory enforcement against non-point source pollution runoffs in its watersheds. Some farmers and other rural landowners reacted angrily. But with the city’s support, the Catskill farmers created a program they called “Whole Farm Planning,” which incorporated environmental planning into the business strategy of the farm. A pollution control plan was developed for each farm by the farmer and local farm and agricultural experts.

To ensure pollution control efforts would reach critical mass, the program set a goal of obtaining the participation rate of 85% of Catskill farmers within five years. Thus, while the program was voluntary for any individual farmer, the Catskill farm community as a whole was committed to reach a goal that would ensure the City met its pollution reduction objectives. After five years, 93% of all Catskill farmers were full program participants.

In terms of Clean Water, the results speak for themselves:
There was a 75% to 80% reduction in farm pollution loading;  
The pristine quality of the City’s drinking water was preserved and improved, and the threat that New York would have to spend billions on advanced treatment of drinking water was eliminated; 
The program paid for itself many times over through its many cost savings and played a critical role in helping to stabilize water and sewer tariffs, providing major benefits to low-income households; 
The program was wildly popular with the public and helped build strong urban support for future watershed protection efforts by New York City.
On a broader scale, the Catskill program spurred watershed protection and environmentally-friendly farm programs throughout the United States and catalyzed interest in non-traditional facility construction approaches of the U.S. water industry.

Ecosystem service payment programs like the one used in New York are a way of capturing the environmental profits from the services rural ecosystems provide urban areas and then funneling those profits back into the rural landscapes and the rural communities that provide them, creating a righteous cycle of mutually supportive economic and ecological investments between urban and rural areas, leading to a more sustainable future for both.

The importance of these payments for environmental services (PES) to the future of rural landscapes in particular cannot be overstated. All over the world, rural landscapes are being transformed at a rate that has no historic or economic parallel. PES payments can stabilize rural land use at a more balanced point by making environmental stewardship a new source of economic wealth for rural populations.

The list of water related ecosystem services is almost endless. Water utilities need to go beyond deployment of their traditional engineering skills and pioneer innovative financial arrangements with upstream residents, as New York City did, to take full advantage of these potentials.

—ALBERT APPLETON
photo from Ephemeral New York (ed: a wonderfully fascinating site)

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

The Little Free Library That Could


Bringing the shareable society to a sidewalk near you

You can boost literacy, neighborliness and the commons all at once with a Little Free Library. It’s such an ingeniously simple idea, one wonders why no one thought of it until now. You can take a book or leave a book (or both) at these informal institutions, which “look like birdhouses and act like water coolers” according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. They are popping up all over Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota, and spreading throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The idea began with social entrepreneur Todd Bol who built the first one in his home of Hudson, Wisconsin and kept right on going. He soon teamed up with his friend Rick Brooks in Madison to form the non-profit group Little Free Libraries to spread the idea. Today, they’ve nearly doubled their goal of establishing 2510 new libraries around the world, outdoing philanthropist Andrew Carnegie.

For the latest about the movement as well as all the information you need about building, buying, stocking and maintaining a Little Library in your neighborhood, go to their website Little Free Library.

—JAY WALLJASPER

Photo from Little Free Libraries website

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Philanthropy Cannot Solve All Our Problems

                            COMMONER                             


An authority on non-profits explains the necessity for government programs

Kim Klein, an eminent authority on fundraising for non-profit groups, first realized the importance of the commons one afternoon at a workshop in Monterrey, California.

“I was fielding questions about how groups can raise money,” she remembers, “and I realized that half the people in the room were school principals and superintendents, who were taking a day off of work because raising money had become so important to their jobs.”

Klein, author of Fundraising for Social Change and co-founder of the Grassroots Fundraising Journal, immediately wondered, “What’s going on here?” Education is a commons that should be supported through public taxes, she says, not private donations. If school principals need to write grants to cover teacher’s salaries, something is wrong.

Even more shocking was another growing segment of the fundraising business that Klein noticed at the time. “About twice a month I got a call from parents who want to raise money to buy Kevlar vests for their kids in the Iraq War. Everything has become so privatized—even the safety of our soldiers.”

It’s become her mission to highlight the importance of the commons to people in the non-profit sector, which accounts for 10 percent of the workforce in the U.S. and 12 percent in Canada. She does this through her firm Klein and Roth Consulting and the activist group Building Movement Project.

For Klein, a Methodist who once considered becoming a minister, the commons is a spiritual as well as a political and social issue.

“I introduce the idea of the commons into all my workshops, conversations and speeches,” she adds, “starting with the premise that the commons is becoming enclosed because of privatization, poor tax policy, environmental degradation and the like. I am now leading specific workshops on the role of taxes in our society.”

Klein lives in California, and therefore has seen firsthand the pain and suffering that happens with reflexive opposition to tax increases. “Tax cuts rarely save money for the public,” she notes. “They enclose our commons and they allow only very wealthy people and corporations to become wealthier. The sooner we understand the absurdity of saving money by cutting taxes, the sooner we can actually become the...nation that people imagine: welcoming to all, with high-quality schools and health care, well paying jobs, and vast protected natural beauty.”

She notes that in many countries,“ people pay half their income in sales and income taxes. But they get a lot for it. Unlimited health care and universal higher education, for a start. That’s why they don’t hate taxes.”

Klein’s vision of a commons-based society is built on a foundation of sensible tax policy as well the civic sector, community involvement and people treating one another well. “How do we make sure each person has what they need and how can we take care of the common good? That cannot all be accomplished by philanthropy, it needs public funding.”

—JAY WALLJASPER

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

We Need Economic Security Beyond Jobs


A commons sense plan to pay everyone dividends on our common wealth

A cushion of reliable income is a wonderful thing. It can help pay for basic necessities. It can be saved for rainy days or used to pursue happiness on sunny days. It can encourage people to take entrepreneurial risks, care for friends, or volunteer for community service.

Conversely, the absence of reliable income is a terrible thing. It heightens anxiety and fear. It diminishes our ability to cope with crises and transitions. It traps many families on the knife’s edge of poverty, and makes it harder for poor people to rise.

There’s been much discussion of late about how to save America’s declining middle class. The answer politicians of both parties give is always the same: jobs, jobs, jobs. The parties differ on how the jobs will be created—Republicans say the market will do it if we cut taxes and regulation. Democrats say government can help by investing in infrastructure and education. Either way, it still comes down to jobs with decent wages and benefits.

It’s understandable that politicians say this: it was America’s experience in the past. In the years following World War II, we built a solid middle class on the foundation of high-paying, mostly unionized jobs in the manufacturing sector. But those days are history.

Today, automation and computers have eliminated millions of jobs, and private-sector unions have been crushed. On top of that, in a globalized economy where capital can hire the cheapest labor anywhere, it’s no longer credible to believe that America’s middle class can prosper from labor income alone.

So why don’t we pay everyone some non-labor income—you know, the kind of money that flows disproportionally to the rich? I’m not talking about redistribution here. I’m talking about paying dividends to equity owners in good old capitalist fashion. Except that the equity owners in question aren’t owners of private wealth, they’re owners of common wealth. Which is to say, all of us.

One state—Alaska—already does this. The Alaska Permanent Fund uses revenue from state oil leases to invest in stocks, bonds and similar assets, and from those investments pays equal dividends to every resident. Since 1980, these dividends have ranged from $1,000 to $2,000 per year per person, including children (meaning that they’ve reached up to $8,000 per year for households of four). It’s therefore no accident that, compared to other states, Alaska has the third highest median income and the second highest income equality.
Alaska’s model can be extended to any state or nation, whether or not they have oil.

Imagine an American Permanent Fund that pays dividends to all Americans, one person, one share. A major source of revenue could be clean air, nature’s gift to us all. Polluters have been freely dumping ever-increasing amounts of gunk into our air, contributing to ill-health, acid rain and climate change. But what if we required polluters to bid for and pay for permits to pollute our air, and decreased the number of permits every year? Pollution would decrease, and as it did, pollution prices would rise. Less pollution would yield more revenue. Over time, trillions of dollars would be available for dividends.

And that’s not the only common resource an American Permanent Fund could tap. Consider the substantial contribution society makes to publicly traded stock values. When a company like Facebook or Google goes public, its value rises dramatically. The extra value derives from the vastly enlarged market of investors who can trust a public company’s financial statements (filed quarterly with the Securities and Exchange Commission) and buy or sell its shares with the click of a mouse. Experts call this a ‘liquidity premium,’ and it’s generated not by the company but by society.

This socially created wealth now flows mostly to a small number of Americans. But if we wanted to, we could spread it around. We could do that by charging corporations for the extra liquidity that society provides. Let’s say we required public companies to deposit 1 percent of their shares in the American Permanent Fund for ten years, up to a total of 10 percent. This would be a modest price not just for public liquidity but for other privileges (limited liability, perpetual life, constitutional protections) we currently grant to corporations for free. In due time, the American Permanent Fund would have a diversified portfolio worth trillions of dollars. As the stock market rose and fell, so would everyone’s dividends. A rising tide would truly lift all boats.

There are other potential revenue sources for common wealth dividends. For example, we give free airwaves to media companies and nearly perpetual (and nearly global) copyright protection to entertainment and software companies. These free gifts are worth big bucks. If their recipients were required to pay us for them, we’d all be a little richer.

Regardless of its revenue sources, the mechanics of an American Permanent Fund would be simple. Every U.S. resident with a valid Social Security number would be eligible to open a Shared Wealth Account at a bank or brokerage firm; dividends would then be wired to their accounts monthly. There’d be no means test—and no shame—attached to these earnings, as there are to welfare. Nor would there be any hint of class warfare—Bill Gates would get his dividends along with everyone else. And since the revenue would come from common wealth, there’d be no need to raise taxes or cut government spending. All we’d have to do is charge for private use of common wealth and feed the resulting revenue into an electronic distribution system.

The United States isn’t broke, as some Republican say; we’re a very wealthy and productive country. The problem is that our wealth and productivity gains flow disproportionately to the rich in the form of dividends, capital gains, rent and interest. If we want to remain a middle class nation, that needs to change. Jobs alone won’t suffice. We need to complement wages with non-labor income from the wealth we all own. That would truly make us an ownership society.

—PETER BARNES
Photo by Wikinut Wealth & Job Creation

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Who Needs Government?


What’s right and what’s wrong with Libertarians’ vision of a volunteer society

Libertarians, the Tea Party and other so-called conservatives devoted to slashing all government spending not related to the military, prisons, the drug war and highways have an easy answer when asked what happens to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on public programs. They point to volunteerism—the tradition of people taking care of each other, which has sustained human civilization for millennia.

It’s a compelling idea, which evokes the spirit of the commons. Volunteers working largely outside the realm of government—neighborhood organizations, local fire brigades, blood banks and other civic initiatives—are obvious examples of commons-based sharing and caring.

So that means John Boehner, Ron Paul and Sean Hannity qualify as commoners, too, despite their adamant skepticism about Medicaid, environmental regulations and campaign finance limits? Not so fast! Volunteerism never rises above a convenient smokescreen, which right-of-center politicians use to justify shredding the social safety net. Increased support for the people and institutions that help the poor and the sick, strengthen our communities, protect the environment and generally make America a kinder and gentler place (to quote the most ardent proponent of volunteerism, George H.W. Bush) never make the final cut in the right-wing blueprint for our future. They’re a lot of talk, and but little action when it comes to actually supporting the kind of cooperative efforts that make a better world.

Theoretically you could imagine a classical conservative model of a commons-based society based upon strong incentives for everyday citizens people to fill the void of services now provided by federal, state and local governments—everything from police protection to basic scientific research to the Public Health Service. But to actually create such a society, however, would mean some sweeping changes to current economic and social policies that today’s right-wing spokesmen would never tolerate.

To truly encourage widespread volunteerism, we’d need to make sure that everyone (not just the well-to-do) had the time to do it. Most people today, working longer hours for less pay, are frantic just to get through the day. Finding extra time in their crunched schedules to manage upkeep at the local park or take care of elderly neighbors looks impossible.
What it would take to make this happen would be a dramatically expanded vacation time, family-leave benefits and probably a four-day workweek—or at least stringent enforcement of overtime provisions for all people working more than 40 hours a week.

Even more important to brightening what George H.W. Bush called the thousand points of light would be a return to the days of the family wage—the period before the 1970s when a middle-class household could get by on one workers’ wages. And unlike the days before the 1970s, minorities and low-wage workers would not be excluded from this social contract. And since we live in a different social era now, it’s likely that many couples today would elect to both work half time. But any way you want to do it, this would trigger a volcanic eruption of volunteers. The place to start would be enacting a Canadian-style health care system and tripling the minimum wage right away.

I cannot imagine political leaders who call themselves conservative these days would stand for any of the ideas laid out in the previous two paragraphs—although some of the people who vote for them might, including evangelicals, traditionalist Catholics and “conservatives” who are actually in favor of preserving community values rather than sacrificing them in the name of exponentially expanding corporate profits.

Boehner, Michelle Bachmann and many Democrats, too, would recoil at these ideas because they shift the balance of power in society from the wealthy who finance their campaigns to the poor and middle-class who, in the famous words of Bill Clinton, “work hard and play by the rules.”

These pro-volunteer, pro-commons policies also depend on government playing an important role: Enforcing new vacation, family leave, work hours and minimum wage laws, as well as making sure everyone has adequate health care coverage and access.

Politicians and pundits on the right often accuse progressives of being naïve about human nature for not recognizing the true motives that drive people’s behavior. That’s debatable in light of new evidence from many fields that our cooperative instincts are stronger than our selfish ones.

But we certainly have a case of the pot calling the kettle black right here: Conservatives laud volunteerism as the best way to maintain our social fabric, yet they naively believe that this will happen with no provisions to stop unscrupulous employers from stealing so much of people’s time with low wages and stingy vacations policies that they have no time left over for the common good.

—JAY WALLJASPER
Photo by Jam Creative - Encinitas Marine Safety

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Business Based on What We Share

                            COMMONER                             



Latino entrepreneur Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin returns to his roots with a local food project

“Common sense” is a term entrepreneur Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin uses with ever increasing enthusiasm to describe the local food initiative he is creating with immigrant Latino farmers in Minnesota.

“I come from the commons,” declares Haslett-Marroquin, who grew up in Guatemala, where his family still farms com- munal lands. “And I am going back to the commons.”

He is the co-founder of the fair trade Peace Coffee Company, and leads the Sustainable Food and Agriculture Program at the Minneapolis-based Main Street Project. In 2006 founded the Rural Enterprise Center in Northfield, Minnesota, which like many Midwestern communities has attracted growing numbers of Latin American immigrants.

In times of economic stagnation, many people worry that immigrants are taking jobs needed by native-born Americans. These fears are especially keen in small towns, where the impact of the continuing economic crisis hits hard. Haslett-Marroquin, however, sees an opportunity that can benefit both immigrants and the community as a whole.

He noticed that many people around Northfield were eager to eat more locally raised, healthy food but were unable to afford it or sometimes even find it. At the same time, he saw that Latino immigrants had lifelong experience as sustainable farmers but lacked the financial means to take up farming. The solution was obvious. Find a way to get Latino farmers back on the land and connect them with consumers seeking wholesome food. This is exactly what Haslett-Marroquin did in launching a free-range poultry enterprise, market garden and family farmer training program, all designed to put good food on local dinner tables and income into the pockets of family farmers.

“Agripreneurship” is how Haslett-Marroquin describes this effort to revive family farming for local markets by taking advantage of immigrants’ first-hand knowledge of small-scale sustainable agriculture practices. “Commons sense,” he says, is another word for what he and his colleagues are doing.

This training center and enterprise are a shining example of an emerging idea known as commons-based development—a strategy that strengthens the commons by making sure that economic expansion projects help the community as a whole.

While commons work is often seen as an activist or community cause more than a business model, Hasslett-Marroquin’s projects embody fundamental commons principles: a commitment to future generations, a focus on sustaining the earth, and a means of providing a benefit to everyone.

As Haslett-Marroquin says, “the commons is a very straightforward common-sense approach to creating systems that sustain society and sustain life on the planet.”

—JAY WALLJASPER

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

The Foundation of Commons-Based Solutions


Six elements of a new paradigm

  1. We understand that everyone belongs—and everyone has a stake in any decisions made. No exceptions.
  2. We act out of sufficiency (“there is enough”) and share a mutual responsibility to take care of this abundance and pass it on.
  3. We value the humanity of everyone.
  4. We seek a rough social equity in decision-making, outcomes and across society as a whole.
  5. We take history into account—everyone’s history. Who we are, what we’ve experienced and where we come from.
  6. We put structures, systems or rules in place to make sure everyone belongs and ensure continuity of this work into the future.

—THE ON THE COMMONS TEAM
Photo by Ben Strader.

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Stealing the Common from the Goose


A 17th century rhyme that stands the test of time

This 17th century folk poem is one of the pithiest condemnations of the English enclosure movement—the process of fencing off common land and turning it into private property. In a few lines, the poem manages to criticize double standards, expose the artificial and controversial nature of property rights, and take a slap at the legitimacy of state power. And it does it all with humor, without jargon, and in rhyming couplets.

– James Boyle, Professor at Duke Law School

The law locks up the man or woman 
Who steals the goose off the common 
But leaves the greater villain loose 
Who steals the common from the goose.

The law demands that we atone 
When we take things we do not own 
But leaves the lords and ladies fine 
Who takes things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape 
If they conspire the law to break; 
This must be so but they endure 
Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman 
Who steals the goose from off the common 
And geese will still a common lack 
Till they go and steal it back.


Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

The Re-Mix Master

                            COMMONER                             

The living embodiment of collaboration: DJ Spooky.
Hip Hop sound artist DJ Spooky fuses music from all over

Paul Miller, a beret-wearing hip hop musician, is the living embodiment of collaboration. He performs and records as DJ Spooky (the name is taken from a character in William Burrough’s novel Nova Express). His CD remixes and deejay performances “steal” materials from every imaginable source—from Yoko Ono to Metallica to modern minimalist composer Steve Reich to Jamaican pop tunes of the ‘60s to D.W. Griffith’s movie “Birth of a Nation” to Pacific Island traditions.

But he has earned his eclecticism honestly. He travels constantly to music-making subcultures around the world, from indigenous people to electronic music undergrounds, from Antarctica to Angola to a New Year’s Eve party on the beaches of Rio—and then produces some thing “new.”

Miller deeply explores the philosophy and meaning of music sampling. This is reflected in the book Sound Unbound, an anthology of essays about music sampling by the likes of Sun Ra, Philip Glass, William Burroughs, and a few dozen others.

Miller points out the artificiality of “authorship” because in practice no one creates something entirely new. We are constantly borrowing from the past and from our peers, and then remixing it into something “new.” Why should the most recent individual “author” get all the credit for the work, as copyright law mandates?

Miller pointed out that societies that openly honor the re-use of works from the past are actually “keeping the past alive” through that re-use. New art becomes an ongoing conversation with our ancestors. By contrast, modern copyright-driven culture considers its past “dead,” which in a sense it is. We are impoverished by not being able to access the past freely and openly unless it is very old. Copyright terms are now the lifetime of an author plus seventy years.

(This fall DJ Spooky was a resident artist at the Metropolitan Museum in New York City.)
—DAVID BOLLIER
Photo by Scott Beale under a Creative Commons license from flickr.com.

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Facing Our Own Mortality, Our Death


Obey, based on Chris Hedges' "Death of the Liberal Class." Facing my own mortality I select the artistic representation of Hedges' work as he says it better than I ever could.



Sadly, a quarrelsome crowd of so called community activists are trying to frame local politics as versions of the corrupt corporate power exposed in the clip. We have the good fortune of dedicated civil servants.  Their reward is character assassination via ideologues uninterested in real solutions or real dialog.  I have been too ill recently to take this on and it breaks my heart. We have very real and eminent corporate power to be fighting, to be monitoring, to be holding accountable. And, our most important goal of recruiting Encinitas citizens to engage in civic activities, to learn about our government and how to make our individual sills contribute to the public good?  How are we doing there?  The council is doing an incredible job.  The angry crowd is driving good people away. Community FAIL.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Protecting the Planet Starts With How We Think About the World


Life is more than a never-ending race to acquire more stuff and assert dominance over everything around us

In an era of rapid global warming and accelerated loss of biodiversity, protecting the Earth will take more than merely adjusting our actions— polluting less here, conserving more there, moving toward sustainability within the confines of today’s prevailing worldview.

To really save our planet, we must change how we think about the world itself and our place within it. This means taking a fresh look at nature, learning from its amazing rhythms, patterns and interconnections. And it means opening our selves up to new possibilities for how humans work together to survive, thrive and ensure good lives for coming generations.

A shift of this importance will not happen easily. It requires a fundamental reorganizing of our industrial, hierarchical, technocratic, economic-centric culture. And it will be ferociously opposed by those who reap fat profits from the way things are.

Yet we must remember that the modern industrial, market way of life—which is so deeply instilled in many people’s minds that they can’t imagine living any other way—actually benefits only a tiny sliver of the planet’s inhabitants. Certainly not plants and animals, nor people living in the global south, nor the poor and most of the middle-class in the overdeveloped world, nor people who love nature, nor those seeking meaning in their lives beyond buying and selling.

Most people envision their lives as something more than a never-ending race to accumulate more money, acquire more stuff, achieve more technical prowess and assert dominance over everything around us. Competitive instincts do not wholly define the human character—we also possess deep urges to cooperate with one another and to appreciate the wonder of this world we call home.

That’s why I believe the global movement for the United Nations to adopt a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (modeled on the landmark Universal Declaration on Human Rights) is not a quixotic crusade. It only makes sense to move toward a different worldview that challenges the dictates of a globalized profit-crazed industrial system. But how? Well, the commons is a proven model of how we can relate more harmoniously with nature and each other that has been the organizing principle of many cultures through the centuries.

The commons represents an old way of looking at life that’s now being heralded as a bold new idea for solving the problems that face us. In essence, it’s an operating system for life on Earth that focuses on what we share, rather than on what we own individually. The commons still flourishes around the globe today, not only in indigenous and peasant societies where it is the foundation of daily life, but also in the heart of rich, technologically advanced nations.

We all need the gifts of air, water, soil, plants, animals, minerals and genes bestowed by Mother Earth. We all depend on the bounty of oceans, forests, skies, plains, rivers, prairies, wilderness and biodiversity. Without sharing these resources, and the many layers of collaboration they foster, modern society would not exist.

The commons puts useful tools in our hands to stop the assault on Mother Earth and start the healing of our planet. Restoring the commons and defending the rights of Mother Earth are really the same cause, which depends upon discovering a different vision of looking at and living in the world.

—JAY WALLJASPER

Credit: Tatoo: Nick Wasko from Sacred Heart; Photo: Melissa Dex Guzman under a Creative Commons license from flickr.com

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

About Mothers Day . . .

Published on Sunday, May 13, 2012 by Common Dreams by Medea Benjamin
Celebrating On the Commons returns next Sunday.

Don’t Send Me Roses for Mothers Day

What happened to us mothers? We allowed this holiday to get away from us. We allowed it to become commercialized, individualized, commodified, unpoliticized. We allowed it to be about superficial symbols of love—flowers and chocolates and store-bought cards. We allowed it be a time when we, as mothers, sit back and receive personal recognition, instead of a time when we, as mothers, stand up together to make collective demands.

Let’s be clear about what Mothers Day was supposed to be, before it fell out of our grip. It was the brainchild of a brilliant woman, Julia Ward Howe, who was horrified by the carnage and suffering during the Civil War and the economic devastation that followed. She was also heart-broken by the outbreak of war between France and Germany in 1870, with its ominous display of German military might and imperial designs. She used her poetic gift to pen a proclamation against war, a proclamation that birthed Mothers Day.

"Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause," Julia wrote. "Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. " Her solution? Women should gather together to "promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace."

So here we are, more than a century later, still in the throes of wars abroad and violence in our communities. But instead of coming together to say “Disarm, disarm,” we are content with trinkets and breakfast in bed. Isn’t it time to get out of bed, out of the kitchen, out of the house and into the streets? We should be demanding that our government stop pillaging our treasury by spending $2 billion a week on an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. We should be demanding good education and forgiveness of our children’s college loans, not more money for the bloated Pentagon. We should be demanding that the guns that kill over 30,000 of our sons and daughters every year here at home be banished from the store shelves. We should demand that our nation stop locking up our children for nonviolent crimes, just to feed a disgraceful private prison industry. We should demand that conflict resolution be mandatory in our schools to stop bullying and prejudice, and that diplomacy be mandatory in our foreign relations.

This is our day, moms. Let’s reclaim it and embrace its origins. Our day should not be solely about us, as individuals, but about us embodying the collective desires of mothers around the world—to stop our children from killing and being killed by others mother’s children. No one is going to bring that to us on a breakfast platter; it’s something that we women demand.

Happy Mothers Day.

Medea Benjamin (medea@globalexchange.org), cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. Her previous books include Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart., and (with Jodie Evans) Stop the Next War Now (Inner Ocean Action Guide).

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Sen. Warren Introduces the Bank on Students Fairness Act



Are you still banking at Bank of America, Chase, Well's Fargo or Goldman Sachs? 

If so, what the hell are you thinking?




Monday, May 6, 2013

Cooked

Give yourself and enjoyable hour, Amy Goodman interviews Michael Pollan about his new book, Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation.



Rush Transcript (May not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour today with one of the country’s leading writers and thinkers on food and food policy: Michael Pollan. He has written several best-selling books about food, including The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. He has just written a new book called Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation. In the book, Michael Pollan argues taking back control of cooking may be the single most important step anyone can take to help make our food system healthier and more sustainable. Michael Pollan is the Knight Professor of Science and Environmental Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley School of Journalism. He joined me in New York when his book was released just a week ago. I started by asking him about the journey he took in writing Cooked.

MICHAEL POLLAN: It was probably the most fun I’ve ever had as a writer. And it’s hard to describe it as work exactly. When I figured out what I wanted to do, which was kind of drive cooking back to its most elemental reality, I decided to apprentice myself to a series of masters. And I divided it into four essential transformations that—you know, kind of the common denominator of all cooking: fire, cooking with fire, you know, the oldest; water, which is to say cooking in pots, which comes much later in history and involves a whole different set of ways of transferring heat; air, for baking; and earth, for fermentation. And so, in each case, I found somebody or a couple somebodies who were really good at the mastery of that element, and I worked for them, you know, a number of shifts, a number of events, and—or lessons, and just kind of acquired these skills that I had never had before.

AMY GOODMAN: So tell us about your trip to North Carolina, to the barbecue maker.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, I wanted to start with fire because fire is where cooking starts, probably two million years ago, according to the current thinking, which is before, of course, we were Homo sapiens. We were still Homo erectus at that point. And when we acquired the control of fire and the ability to cook meat especially over fire, but other things, as well, we unlocked this treasure trove of calories, of energy, that other animals didn’t have, because when you cook food, you basically predigest it outside of the body, so you don’t have to use as much energy—your body doesn’t have to use as much energy to break it down. You don’t have to chew it as much. And it’s a huge boon, and it probably led to the larger brain that we have compared to other apes our size, and the smaller gut—although we seem intent on enlarging that gut right now.

But so I figured what was the—what was the cooking most like that? And it was whole-hog barbecue as practiced in eastern North Carolina. You know, barbecue is very balkanized, and every region in the South has very different rules on what constitutes barbecue and an abhorrence of all other forms of barbecue, which they won’t even call barbecue. So I went to North Carolina, to eastern North Carolina, and I worked with a man named Ed Mitchell, who is a pretty well-known pitmaster, African American, who’s been at it for many, many years, after being a Vietnam vet and working as a Ford—in the Ford dealership network.

And I went—we did a couple barbecues, where we cooked these whole pigs over wood and very slowly, and then we had these amazing public events, where you have to take an entire pig and chop it up, mix it with various spices and vinegar, and turn it into sandwiches. It’s actually remarkably simple kind of cooking. It’s like pig, heat, wood, time. That’s the whole recipe. But you need a whole pig, and you have to be able to move it around, which is a little tricky.
What I liked about Ed is, unlike almost every other pitmaster I could find, he cared about the pigs and where they came from. Barbecue is an incredibly democratic food. It’s cheaper than McDonald’s in many places and far more delicious. On the other hand, the only reason it can be that cheap is they use commodity hogs, the worst of the worst, which is—you know, it’s an industry kind of ruining North Carolina. Ed Mitchell is a little different in that he really cares where the hogs come from. And in fact he’s paid a price for that with the industry. And—

AMY GOODMAN: In what way?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, you know, they—when he started kind of evangelizing about using small farmers’ hogs raised outdoors, all of a sudden he had tax audits and prosecutions for various business practices. And, you know, no one’s been able to prove the quid pro quo, but the timing is awfully suspicious. And he lost one of his restaurants because of this initiative against him.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what his concern was about commodity hogs.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, you know, hogs today are raised indoors in brutal conditions in these confinement—CAFOs—confinement operations. They’re—the sows live in little cages too narrow for them ever to turn around in their entire lives, because they don’t want them to crush their babies, and it just makes it easier to inseminate them, which they do over and over and over again. And these pigs, you know, go crazy gradually. I mean, I’ve written about this before, and that’s one of the reasons I had trouble celebrating barbecue that wasn’t in some sense humane or sustainable. And Ed has figured out how to do it. And, of course, he has to charge $9 or $10 for a sandwich. Other places charge $3. But on the other hand, it’s a whole meal, so I don’t begrudge him that price.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain how he does it.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, Ed does whole hog exclusively. He thinks the way they do it over in, you know, the western part of the state, where they just do pork shoulders, it’s good, but it’s not barbecue. And he does it in—over wood and charcoal very slowly. So you—the key to making barbecue is getting the temperature consistent and low, like 200 degrees. None of us cook at 200 degrees. That’s like a hot tub—I mean, it’s a hot hot tub. But when you do that, the fat kind of slowly renders into the meat, and the meat gradually breaks down. And after 20 hours or so, you could pull the whole thing apart with a fork, and it’s really delicious.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you went from fire to?

MICHAEL POLLAN: To water. And, you know, fire cooking is very male. It’s very—there’s a lot of self-dramatizing guys doing barbecue, as there still are in every backyard in America. And it’s very ritualistic and very public and very communal. It has some wonderful and stupid, you know, bombastic qualities.

Cooking in pots is more domestic, traditionally more feminine, more modest. You know, it happens under a lid. You can’t see what’s happening. You can’t watch a pot boil, because it won’t boil. But it’s a very important technology, and the second important cooking technology. It comes—doesn’t happen until about 10,000 years ago, because you need pottery that can hold water and survive heat to start cooking this way. But when you can cook with water, by boiling water, you can soften grains, for example. A revolution happens in human society, because you can feed old people and very young people who don’t have teeth. So, the elderly live longer as soon as you can boil food, and you can wean babies earlier. So, it’s a wonderful method for that. And it also allows you to combine plants and meat or just plants. It allows you to eat grain, which you can’t really eat without water. And it really, you know, was a revolutionary way of cooking.

And I approached it as a lesson, a series of lessons in braising stews and soups. And I worked with this wonderful chef named Samin Nosrat, who is Iranian American, trained at Chez Panisse in Berkeley. And she would come to my house every, you know, couple Sundays, and we’d make a big meal together. And my wife and son would get involved, and then we’d invite friends over. And I learned these wonderful lessons from her. And every time, she’d have a theme. You know, "Today we’re going to learn about emulsification." And—

AMY GOODMAN: So, what is emulsification?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Emulsification is basically combining fats and waters in a stable solution, like when you whip eggs or—salad dressing is an emulsification, basically. And how do you get those particles to stay together? Or we do a lesson in the Maillard reaction, which is how, in the presence of heat, amino acids and sugars turn into these wonderful flavor compounds, thousands of them, that makes food much more flavorful, much more allusive. One of the—one of the interesting common denominators of all cooking is that you take these very straightforward given simple flavors, and you complicate them, and you make a food taste like other things. It might taste like—give it the aroma of flowers or, I mean, bacon or—it’s sort of like poetic language, I mean, basically, you know, where you inflect everyday language into something more heightened and allusive to other things, more metaphorical. And you do that with cooking, too. And so, we worked on that. And these were the most practical skills I learned, the ones I use every day. I love making braises. It’s incredibly simple, but time-consuming.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean by braises?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, a braise is basically a stew where you don’t cover the meat, or whatever the central character of your dish is, with liquid. You basically make a mirepoix, which is just a dice of onions and carrots and celery, and you sauté that for as long as you can bear—the longer, the better—and then you add the—you brown your meat, say, if you’re doing chicken, and you put that in, and then you add a liquid. But you only have the liquid come up an inch or so, and it doesn’t cover the meat. And what that does is—and you only cook it very slowly, again, like 225 degrees, for as long as you can stand. You know, four hours is better; chicken, you can get away with two hours. And what happens is the—the part that isn’t covered with liquid browns beautifully: Maillard reaction takes place. And then the bottom kind of stews. And the whole thing kind of gets soft, and the muscle fibers relax and become gelatinous and delicious. And so it’s a really nice way to cook. It’s a way to cook on a Sunday to have several meals during the week, because it’s even better as leftovers than it is the first time around. So, in a way, it was the most sustainable kind of cooking I learned, in the sense that I’ve been able to fold it into my life on a weekly basis.

<break>

AMY GOODMAN: As we return to my conversation with the award-winning journalist, author Michael Pollan, his new book called Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation, I asked him about the slow food movement and the role of Chez Panisse, the Berkeley, California, restaurant known for using local organic foods, known for slow foods.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Chez Panisse, which was founded in 1971, has had a revolutionary effect on our food culture wherever you live in this country. Alice Waters, who started it, made a point of supporting small farmers, organic farmers, and sustainable farmers in other ways, and cooking a very simple food based on high-quality American ingredients. So the earmarks of that kind of cooking are everywhere. And it’s been a great place for hundreds of chefs to train. It’s an incredibly humane kitchen where they’ve just taught—I mean, chances are good that there’s a chef, wherever you live, that went—passed through Chez Panisse and learned something important. But their values are—it’s a famous, elegant restaurant, but it’s incredibly unpretentious, too. People who go there are often underwhelmed. It’s like, "This is it? You know, no fancy sauce?" But it’s just beautiful food cooked with real conviction.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does "slow food" mean?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, slow food is a movement—I mean, and it actually is an organization, although it’s bigger than the organization—that arose in protest against fast food. And it begins in Italy in the '80s, specifically when McDonald's was coming to the Spanish Steps—you know, this kind of hallowed part of Rome. And Carlo Petrini was a left-wing journalist who was outraged that this was a challenge to Italy’s brilliant food culture. So he had a great idea. Unlike José Bové, who kind of, you know, drove his tractor into a McDonald’s plate glass, he did a much more Italian protest, which was, he set up a trestle table on the Spanish Steps outside the new McDonald’s and got all the Italian grandmothers he could find to come bake their—cook their best dish and say, "Here’s real food. What’s better? What do you really want?" And it was a protest based on pleasure and which is—you know, it was just—and it was galvanizing. And it started this movement. And, in fact, Carlo—even though this starts after Chez Panisse, Carlo Petrini and Alice Waters became, you know, close allies, and they share the same values. And so, that’s some of the DNA behind the whole food movement we see rising and this interest in—slow food is about food that is good, clean and fair. They’re concerned with social justice. They’re concerned with how the food is grown and how humane and chemical-free it is.

And they’re concerned with the experience—the loss of the family meal, the loss of eating as a communal activity—everything that fast food and food marketing is doing to our food culture, because—and this is an important theme of the book—there is a deliberate effort to undermine food culture to sell us processed food. The family meal is a challenge if you’re General Mills or Kellogg or one of these companies, or McDonald’s, because the family meal is usually one thing shared. It’s not each member of the family gets to pick what they’re going to eat and get it out of the frozen food section. And it also is a meal where the parent is really in charge and makes the decisions for the family. And the food industry very much has wanted to insinuate itself into our family, get between parents and kids, to market them food. So slow food is about recovering that space around the family and keeping the influence of the food manufacturers outside of the house. And I think it’s very, very important, because, you know, one of the inspirations of this book was discovering that we’re doing so little home cooking now and that the family meal is truly endangered. And, you know, the family meal is very important. It’s the nursery of democracy. I mean, it really is. I mean, it’s where we learn and where we teach our children how to share, how to take turns, how to argue without offending, how to learn about the events of the day. I mean, I learned all this at the table. And if kids are spending all their time in their rooms, you know, passing through the kitchen, nuking a frozen pizza, they’re missing something really important.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to read a quote from your book, Cooked. We’re talking to Michael Pollan, well-known food writer, thinker, really challenging food policy in this country. Michael, you write, "Today, the typical American spends a mere twenty-seven minutes a day of food preparation, and another four minutes cleaning up. That’s less than half the time spent cooking and cleaning up in 1965." You also note that market research shows more than half of the evening meals an American eats are "cooked at home," but that number may be misleading.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah, well, how do they define "cooking"? It’s pretty loose. Basically, cooking, in the marketers’ terms, is just any food that has more than one element, that’s assembled. So, for example, if you took some prewashed bagged lettuce and put a little bit of dressing on it, you’re cooking. Or if you took some cold cuts and put them on bread, you’re—and made a sandwich, you’re cooking. You know, my definition of cooking would be a little more strenuous than that, a little more rigorous—not that I think you always need to cook from scratch. I use, you know, canned tomatoes all the time and canned chickpeas and frozen spinach. And there is a kind of first-order processed food that I think is a real boon to us. These are these one- or two-ingredient processed foods. I think they’re wonderful. You know, I don’t want to have to mill my own flour if I want to bake. But there’s another kind of processing that’s become much more common in the last decade or two, and that is what’s often referred to as hyper- or ultra-processed food. These are processed foods that are meant to be entire meal replacements. They’re called home meal replacements. And this is where we get into trouble, because corporations don’t cook the way humans do. They really don’t. All you—and to know that, all you have to do is read the ingredient labels. Those home meal replacements are full of ingredients that no normal human ever has in their pantry. Polysorbate 80, do you have that in your pantry? I don’t think so. Soy lecithin? Carboxylated—I forget the other two words. I mean, all these—

AMY GOODMAN: No, because the exterminator came and [inaudible].

MICHAEL POLLAN: So, the—so, they cook differently. They also use lots—as you said, lots of salt, fat and sugar to disguise the fact that they’re using the cheapest possible raw ingredients—and to press our buttons.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, how does that disguise?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, if you make anything sweet or salty or fatty enough, you’re not—you’re not going to notice the quality of the meat or the quality of the vegetables involved. We love salt, fat and sugar. We’re hard-wired to go for those flavors. They trip our dopamine networks, which are our craving networks. And, you know, Michael Moss has talked about this in his new book, and David Kessler talked about it, too.

AMY GOODMAN: We actually did just recently interview Michael Moss, the New York Times reporter who wrote Salt Sugar Fat, which he looks at how food companies have known for decades that salt, sugar and fat are not good for us in the quantities Americans consume them, yet every year convincing most of us to ingest about twice the recommended amount. I asked Michael Moss how he thought the problem could be addressed. This is part of his answer.

MICHAEL MOSS: You just can’t throw fresh carrots and fresh apples at kids without engaging them. They’ll chuck them out in the lunchroom. But if we could invigorate the home economics program in this country, which fell by the waysides, I think that would be a huge—

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, home economics?
MICHAEL MOSS: Well, home economics—kids in school used to be taught how to shop, how to cook from scratch, how to be in control of their diets. Doesn’t happen anymore. And I write about this in the book. What did happen is we got Betty Crocker, a figment of the imagination of a marketing official at a food company. She began pushing processed foods, convenience foods, as an alternative to scratch cooking.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain more.
MICHAEL MOSS: This was back in the '50s and ’60s. Betty Crocker, as you all know—I mean, I used to think she was a real person. She wasn't. She started out just as a marketing tool for the companies. But she was—became emblematic of the food industry’s usurpation, if you will, of the home economist. And their notion was, "Hey, look, who’s got time for scratch meals anymore? Let’s encourage consumers to buy our convenience foods to make things easier for them."

AMY GOODMAN: That’s New York Times reporter Michael Moss, who wrote Salt Sugar Fat, which is a very good accompaniment to Cooked, Michael Pollan’s new book. In fact, you, the Michaels, cooked a meal together?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah, we did. We recently—I went out to his house, and we did a meal for the dining section of the Times where we cooked together. He made a pizza. He makes very good pizza. And I made a chickpea soup. I was trying to make something to show that you could make a delicious dish for like two or three bucks. Two cans of chickpeas, a lemon, little olive oil, an onion, you’re set, and—in an hour, and you have this delicious soup. But—and he’s—I have great admiration for Michael’s reporting. This book is terrific. And in a way, they are companion books, because I’m kind of trying to work on the solution to the problem that he did such an amazing job of anatomizing.

AMY GOODMAN: But the—you know, the picture of the two of you, two men cooking in the kitchen—

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: A lot of women may be thinking right now, "Well, the reason we went to fast foods is we didn’t have time anymore to do this stuff."

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah, and there’s some truth to that, although the story about how we moved to processed food is a little more complicated. And the gender politics are really interesting. First of all, the food industry has been trying to worm their way into our kitchens for a hundred years. Betty Crocker goes way back and—as he was talking about. And Betty Crocker was resisted, and the food industry was resisted. Women felt that it was part of their solemn obligation as parents to cook from scratch, and they really resisted processed food. And the breakdown in their resistance doesn’t come until after World War II, well after World War II. And when women went back to work, marketers found that in fact cooking was the housework they didn’t want to give up. It was the creative outlet, compared to cleaning, say. But there was such an uncomfortable conversation unfolding at kitchen tables across America over the—renegotiating the division of labor in the house between men and women. And, you know, there was child care, there was housework, there was cooking. And the food industry recognized there was an opportunity here. And what they did was they leapt in with an advertising campaign directed at women, and it was symbolized by this KFC billboard. Kentucky Fried Chicken runs this huge billboard all across America, big bucket of fried chicken under the words "Women’s Liberation." And it was brilliant, because they associated not cooking with progressive values, and it had never been so associated before. And that was really—it was the era of Virginia Slims, too, right? It was using feminism to sell products. And it succeeded.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to an ad for cake mix in 1978.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Great.

GRANDFATHER: When did you start baking from scratch?
GRANDDAUGHTER: It’s not scratch, Grandpa. It’s Pillsbury Plus.
GRANDFATHER: Devil’s foodcake this firm? It’s got to be scratch.
GRANDDAUGHTER: It’s Pillsbury Plus.
GRANDFATHER: A cake this moist? It’s got to be scratch. A cake this rich? It’s got to be scratch.
GRANDDAUGHTER: It’s Pillsbury Plus. The "Plus" is pudding, pudding right in the mix to add that moistness.
GRANDFATHER: Mmmm, rich flavor. Pillsbury Plus. Looks like scratch has met its match.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Pollan?
MICHAEL POLLAN: That’s great. Well, you know, one of the—one of the breakthroughs in selling cake mixes to women, who—and they bombed when they introduced them in the '50s. All you had to do was add water, and then you had a cake. Then they did some market research, and they said, "You know, if you left out the powdered egg and made women crack an actual egg and add it to the mix, they could take ownership of this cake in a new way." And that's when they took off. So, it was a very interesting game that was played between marketers and American women to get them to accept this food.

It’s worth saying that there is a time crisis in the American household. We work really long hours in this country, much more than they do in Europe, where, by the way, there’s still a lot more home cooking going on, and that one of the earmarks of the labor movement in America, as opposed to Europe, was always to fight for money rather than time. The Europeans fought for time. And that’s kind of their slow food values, in a sense. You know, and we’re also working a total—couples are working a total of an extra month a year since the '70s. I mean, it's a very high amount of time. So, there is a real challenge: How do you cook in the absence of time?

And, you know—but one of the things I found is that convenience food is often not as convenient or time-saving as people think. It doesn’t take a long time to get good food on the table. There’s an episode in the book where we did a microwave meal, where we—everyone in the family could go out and buy whatever home meal replacement they wanted. And my son had French onion soup and hoisin beef stir fry, you know, in a bag. And my wife had lasagna, and I had a curry. And we microwaved them all. It took 40 minutes to get this meal on the table. It was ridiculous, because the microwave is such an individualistic technology, you can just do one—one person’s food at a time. You can’t put them all in. So, by the time the last one was done, the first one was cold and had to be renuked again. And then my son finally said, "I’m moving mine to the oven." And it was just a disaster. And so, it didn’t save time. I mean, I could have made, you know, a perfectly good meal in 40 minutes.

AMY GOODMAN: Like what? What would you make?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, I could have made, let’s say, a stir-fry. I could have made a stir-fry. And we do that all the time. You know, that’s a 20-minute dish, even with all the chopping.

<break>

AMY GOODMAN: We return to my conversation with journalist Michael Pollan, author of the new book, Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation. I asked him to talk about the art of baking bread.

MICHAEL POLLAN: I mean, it sounds really intimidating, but basically, if you put some flour in water and get it to the consistency of like pancake batter—don’t even measure—don’t worry about measurement; just get it to batter. Turn it with—you know, give it a lot of air. Mix it vigorously every time you walk by the kitchen for about a week. At a certain point, you’ll see it will start bubbling. Leave it open to the air. And at a certain point, it will come to life. It’s an amazing moment. And you’ll see little bubbles. And you’ll smell it, and it will smell kind of bready or like yeast. And then you’ve got your starter.

AMY GOODMAN: Even though you didn’t use yeast.

MICHAEL POLLAN: You don’t use yeast, no. Yeast is a—if you want to make great bread, I’m afraid you can’t use yeast. And you don’t need yeast. I mean, yeast is a refined version of a starter. It’s basically one species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that’s been optimized for rapid increase of air in a loaf of bread. A sourdough starter gives you so much more flavor. It’s such a more complicated little culture. And it reflects the microbes in your area. I mean, it has a terroir to it. It’s a wonderful thing.
AMY GOODMAN: So, this thing, of the yeast and water you’re talking about, where you’re making the sourdough starter, some people pass that down for centuries.
MICHAEL POLLAN: Yes. And there are sourdough starters in the Bay Area that go back to the gold rush. There’s a real fetishism. There’s actually a hotel in San Francisco where you can put your starter if you have to go on vacation, and they’ll feed it for you, like, you know, where you take your pets.

AMY GOODMAN: Oh, my god.

MICHAEL POLLAN: I find if I just kind of feed it well and stick it in the back of the refrigerator, it’s fine. I mean, I’m on book tour, and I know when I get home in three weeks, I’ll be able to wake my starter up. It’ll take a—you know, it’ll take a week, but I’ll wake it up. It is like a pet, and you do have some sense of responsibility to it. And you smell it, and you know, oh, it’s getting a little sour, I want it to be a little sweeter, so you give it some more flour. And this is—it’s a miraculous thing. I mean, the whole idea of cooking with microbes, you know, with biology instead of physics, is an astonishing thing. And so, with that starter, you can—you can make beautiful breads, and you can make whole grain bread. It’s very hard to make whole grain bread without a starter. You know, if you’ve ever had one of those whole grain breads that just falls apart in the toaster, that’s because it was made with yeast. The starter conditions the flour in ways that are—make it really delicious and hold together a lot better.

AMY GOODMAN: What kind of sweetener do you use?

MICHAEL POLLAN: I don’t use any sweetener.

AMY GOODMAN: I used to use barley malt.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah, there’s a whole kind of culture, and it grows out of the '60s revival of whole grain, which was I don't think, you know, the proudest moment in American baking. There was a lot of heavy bread that came out of that era, bread that seemed more virtuous than delicious. And so, a lot of sugars were used to make up for the fact that whole grain flour can be more bitter. The bran, which is included, is a little bit bitter. But there’s really good quality whole grain flour now, and it’s being milled really well—and there’s a local wheat movement growing all over the country right now—where the quality of the flour is such that you don’t need to add sweeteners.

AMY GOODMAN: Where do you get it?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, there’s a beautiful mill in California, and company, called Community Grains, which is—I just saw is on the shelf in New York—that’s doing flours and
Whole Foods probably carries this
milling it really beautifully and very fresh. The problem with whole grain is that it goes bad. One of the reasons we moved to white flour, which is a really momentous shift in the history of eating—it’s really the beginning of the industrialization of food, happens in the 1880s. Roller milling technology is invented, that allows you to completely remove the bran and the germ, OK? Those happen to be the healthiest parts of the wheat berry. And we sell those off to the pharmaceutical industry so they can sell us back the vitamins that we’ve removed from the flour. It’s a great business model, but terrible biology. And so, when we figured out how to do that, white flour is stable, so you could mill it anywhere, and it sits on the shelf for years. Whole grain flour is volatile, because it has all these volatile oils. It has omega-3s, for example. And, you know, its helpfulness is directly tied to its perishability. So they didn’t like that, and they were happy to get rid of whole grain.

Now it’s coming back. It has to be milled fresh, though. It doesn’t last as long on the shelf. And, in fact, one of the things I learned, although I wasn’t able to confirm it, as much as I’d like, but many millers told me that when you buy commercial whole grain flours from large companies, the germ is not there. They don’t put it back in. They just put back the bran, because they want it to be more stable. I’m working with some scientists who are trying to test this, so that we could actually prove that when you buy whole grain flour from a big company, you’re actually not getting whole grain. But in the meantime, look for stone-milled, a stone mill flour, if it’s really stone-milled. There’s a lot of deception in the baking industry, and there has been for hundreds of years. It’s no reason—it’s no accident they were stringing up bakers during—and millers, during the French Revolution, because they would put anything in flour, just to fool people—bone meal, chalk. And they would put bakers in the stocks and throw old bread at them.

AMY GOODMAN: When we had this bakery in Maine, in Bar Harbor, I thought the greatest coup would be to get the whole grain bread into the schools of Bar Harbor.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: That was my goal. But we could not compete with Wonder Bread. I mean, as you said—

MICHAEL POLLAN: Uprise.

AMY GOODMAN: Wonder Bread could stay on—well, on—staying on the shelf for two years, versus ours—

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —which after a week, of course, and less than that, it would be moldy, because it was alive.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Exactly. Food should go bad. I mean, there’s something wrong with food that doesn’t go bad. I bought a loaf of Wonder Bread the day they went bankrupt and closed, and—because I wanted to have it for old times’ sake. And it’s still soft. And they went bankrupt, I think, in December. This bread, if feels just like new. How do they do that? In fact, I did go to a Wonder Bread factory and watched them make Wonder Bread, and it was an astonishing process. But it’s not bread, and it’s not baking. It’s something else.

AMY GOODMAN: What is it?

MICHAEL POLLAN: It’s brilliant food chemistry. I mean, there are so many chemicals in that, and a huge amount of yeast, by the way. I mean, it’s up to 10 percent yeast by volume. I mean, as a baker, you know that that’s an outrageous amount of yeast. But the idea is to get this giant cough of carbon dioxide into that dough as fast as possible. And then there are all these dough conditioners and texturizers so it won’t stick to the equipment. I mean, it’s totally automated. Hands never touch this dough. And so, the result—and then they’re trying to have these health claims about fiber, so they’re putting in fiber from God knows where—I mean, from trees, from—you know, from the roots of chicory. I mean, anywhere they can find fiber, they’re putting that in. And it’s just—

AMY GOODMAN: You mean just to say—

MICHAEL POLLAN: Just so they could say "high fiber."

AMY GOODMAN: —it has fiber. So why didn’t they just keep it in and keep the original fiber in?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Because it was—whole grain bread is—I mean, whole grain wheat is just this volatile, difficult substance to work with, and they wanted something that was consistent. And so, it was just about rationalizing the process. And I think they probably don’t want to deal with the germ. The germ is troublesome, even though the germ is delicious and healthful. And then they put lots of sugars in. You look how much sugar is in a typical supermarket loaf of bread, it’s a lot of sugar. It’s just become one of those sugar delivery systems in our food economy.

But I found this moment when we came up with white flour was a turning point, because—in human history, because, going back to the fire two million years ago, every advance in food processing or cooking technology improved our health, gave us something really important, gave us more nutrition, gave us more energy, and for some reason we turn a corner in 1880. And from then on, most food processing makes food less healthy—takes out fiber, for example, adds—it refines it so that the sugars are more readily absorbable. And what we now have is a processed food system of foods that are very high energy but not very high nutrients, and they’re absorbed in the upper gastrointestinal tract like this. And I think that that wrong turn—we kind of got too smart for our own good.

The invention of bread was an amazing advance, because you can’t live—you can’t survive on flour, even whole grain flour. You can survive on bread made from it. The cooking process unlocks the nutrients in that seed. And seeds have everything you need to live, but it all must be unlocked. And a slow fermentation unlocks all that, and a cooking at a high temperature. The loaf of bread itself becomes a pressure cooker. See, instead of—you’re going beyond the temperature of boiling water in a loaf of bread, and steam can get much hotter than water. And so, you’re steaming the starches, which breaks them down. It’s just the most beautiful technology. But, of course, then we screwed it up.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s move on, finally, to earth, to fermentation.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Yeah, this is the pure cooking with microbes and no heat at all. And this, to me, was the most fascinating journey of all. I learned how to pickle vegetables, make sauerkraut and kimchi, and I learned how to make cheese. I worked with the Cheese Nun, this famous nun in Connecticut, Sister Noella, who makes a beautiful French-style cheese from raw milk and—in Bethlehem, Connecticut. And then I worked with brewers and learned a whole lot about microbiology and this unseen world. And I kind of rethought my whole relationship to bacteria, which I had the normal fear and loathing of, like most of us. I grew up in a, you know, bacterially hostile environment—lots of antibiotics, lots of antiseptics, lots of, you know, "Let’s throw out that can; it might possibly be dented, it might have botulism." And I kind of learned—I fell in love with bacteria and the amazing things they can do to flavor. And the fact that you can cut up a cabbage, salt it, mush it around with your hands to bruise it, put it in a crock, do nothing else, and it will turn into sauerkraut in a week or two, it’s an amazing thing, and that there are bacteria—

AMY GOODMAN: No water?

MICHAEL POLLAN: No. The water comes out of the sauerkraut. The salt draws the water out, and that becomes the brine. And the bacteria are already present on the leaves. The bacteria that can break down anything alive is usually accompanying it. There are bacteria on your body that will go to work as soon as you die. And the same is true on a plant. And so, the bacteria you want are there, and it’s a managed rot, essentially, and rot interrupted, basically. And then there’s this wonderful succession of species, ever more acidic, until it stabilizes with all this lactic acid and ends up being a—you know, creating all these very strong—you know, to some people, kind of edgy—flavors that bacteria do. I mean, you think about a stinky cheese. And these are flavors on the edge of acceptability. And I talk a lot, in fact, about the erotics of disgust, which is a big, big factor in cheese that we never talk about.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about it.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, think about this. You know, I mean, the vocabulary surrounding cheese is like—compared to wine, is really impoverished. People say, "Mmm, that’s really good." The furthest they’ll go is: "That’s kind of barnyardy." What is that? Well, that’s a euphemism for animal manure and animals, in general.

And I explored this whole issue of these foods that are on the edge of disgust that we like. And every culture has one, it seems, that they prize and other cultures think is really gross. And so, if you go to China, as I did for the research in this book, they think cheese is one of the most disgusting foods imaginable, even just the cheddar. I mean, I’m not talking about a really stinky cheese, not Limburger. But they are just grossed out by cheese. And yet, they love stinky tofu, a food so garbage-like in its stink that it’s only eaten outdoors. And it’s basically blocks of tofu that are set into a rotting, pussy mass of vegetables, and it lives there for a very long time, and then it’s fried or just eaten that way. And it’s—it’s intense. I tried it. And—or the Icelandic—people in Iceland love this shark that they bury for six months and let rot underground, and then it gets like this ammoniated taste that they love. It’s very defining, I think, for cultures to have a food that every other culture—that you—that is an acquired taste, because people don’t like it, by nature, but that becomes this socially cohesive thing. We’re the people who love a good stinky cheese.

And so, anyway—and some of the bacteria that make a cheese stinky—this was a shock and revelation to me—are more or less the same bacteria that grow on your skin and give the human odor to you, that are—they’re fermenting your perspiration, the same ones that are fermenting the rind of a washed-rind cheese. And so it’s no accident—you know, the French call the stinky cheese the pieds de Dieu, the feet of God, which is—what a weird term. All right, so foot odor, but of a very exalted kind. So, anyway, food takes us in the most amazing places. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Brewing—what about brewing?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Brewing was great fun. And I am—I’m not very good at it yet. My first batch, which I thought tasted fine, I brought to the brewmaster who was teaching me, and he took one sniff, and he said, "Getting a little off, off odor in here. Yes, Band-Aid." And it did, as soon as he said that. There’s something about a metaphor that makes you smell something that you wouldn’t smell otherwise, like, yeah, I’m getting that Band-Aid smell. It’s kind of antiseptic. So I’m working on it. I’m getting better.

You know, brewing beer is—it’s probably the first kind of alcohol, that or mead, which is honey wine. It is—it may well be, I learned, as I studied the history of it, the inspiration for agriculture may not have been food; it may have been alcohol. And there’s some very interesting evidence to suggest that the reason people gave up hunter-gatherers and settled down to have these row crops, which were all fermentable, the first ones, was because they wanted an easy, steady supply of alcohol. It was easy to find food in the world. It was very hard to find alcohol. You had to find some honey that you could—or some ripe fruit, and that was hard to do. But as soon as you could grow grain and mash it and add water and boil it, you could then introduce some yeast from a past batch of beer, and you had this wonderful panacea and pleasure-giving substance.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your favorite dish to cook?

MICHAEL POLLAN: I still love a roast chicken. That’s my comfort food, you know, and I’ll always fall back to roast chicken. I love braises. I find that’s a great winter comfort food. It’s all broken down. There are vegetables in it, and it creates its own sauce. And so, those are great comfort foods for me. But I also have developed a taste for kimchi, and I make kimchi, and I always have kimchi going. I have a pot burbling somewhere in my kitchen. And—

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what kimchi is.

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, kimchi is basically the Korean version of sauerkraut. It’s a cabbage ferment, but with lots of—it’s easier to make than sauerkraut, even though it has more ingredients, because it’s got lots of spices in it. It has garlic, and it has ginger, and it has red peppers. And all those things keep funguses from forming, which can be a problem making sauerkraut. It will get mushy, because you’ve got some fungi in there you don’t need. Doesn’t happen with kimchi. Koreans live by it. It is a very healthy food. It feeds the—you know, we have an internal fermentation going on, too, in our large intestine that’s really important to our health. And fermented food helps feed that fermentation, both with substrate fiber and really good bacteria. You’re getting—you know, if you’re interested in probiotics, you can get them in pills.

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you mean by probiotics?

MICHAEL POLLAN: Well, probiotics are a healthy bacteria. They’re bacteria that—you know, yogurt has probiotics in it. These are basically bacteria that contribute to our health, either by stimulating the immune system or changing the expression of genes in our own bacteria. I got kind of deep into the microbiology of this. It turns out we’re only 10 percent human and 90 percent microbes. And one of the problems with the modern Western diet is it only feeds the 10 percent. It offers very little to the 90 percent, which are these microbes, which you really depend on to be healthy. And fermented food is a way to give them something that they really like to eat. So I try to do that.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael, what were you most surprised by in writing Cooked?

MICHAEL POLLAN: I guess I was surprised that some of these things I found incredibly daunting are not, that even baking, you can throw away your recipe book at a certain point and trust your senses. Cooking has been so fetishized in our culture and so complicated and professionalized. You know, we watch these shows on TV that make cooking look like, you know, competitive sports. There’s a clock running down. Knives are flying, fires, you know, fountains. And it looks really intimidating. Once you actually get in the kitchen and you’re willing to fail a little and trust your instincts—I now bake by sense. I know when the dough is getting billowy, and I know when it smells—you know, it’s getting a little too acidic, I better stop the fermentation. You know, we need to—there was this interesting moment when Dr. Spock came along in the '60s, and everybody had gotten so intimidated about child rearing by all the experts telling them what to do and the companies selling formula and the modern way of birth and all this kind of stuff. And he came along and just kind of restored people's confidence in their instincts. I think that needs to happen in the kitchen, too. I think we’ve really been separated from this fundamental—cooking is in our DNA. It really goes deep in our species, in our culture. And it is true that we need to—that we need to rebuild a culture of cooking that can’t be like the old one. It can’t be women’s work. We have to get everybody back in the kitchen.

But one of the other most surprising things I learned is that if you cook, if you eat food cooked by a human, either yourself or a loved one, you don’t have to worry about your diet. It takes care of itself. You won’t eat crap. You won’t make French fries every day. You won’t make cream-filled cakes every day. It’s too much work. You’ll be eating real food. You won’t have to count calories. Home cooking is a guarantor of a healthy diet. We know, in general, that the poorer you are, the worse your diet. Not if you’re cooking. Poor women who cook have a healthier diet than wealthy women who don’t. So, it is really—cooking is the key to health. Not to mention, all these amazing pleasures. You know, I don’t see it as drudgery anymore. I see it as alchemy.