#comiendoconetica

     Terms like 'Food' and 'Fraud' are not always heard in the same sentence. The same could also be said about 'Mislabeled' and 'Seafood', and, yet, the topic concerning mislabeled seafood has been raised time and again for a while. From coast to coast, states like Maryland [1] and California [2] have introduced bills against mislabeling seafood as a reaction to something that many would never consider: the fish labelled 'grouper' on your menu might not be grouper at all. In order to overcome the issue of seafood fraud, legislation concerning the safety of seafood has been introduced in Congress [3] to establish national standards for what's brought in, federally, and some have developed codes to ensure that what is on presented for consumption [4] is what the customer has ordered.

       Within the United States, there is a high percentage of seafood that is imported; as high as 92 percent. Of this percentage of imported seafood, a surprising amount-in the past-has been mislabeled, purchased and served across the country without much concern raised about 1) where it originated from, 2) where it was before and during importation to the country and 3) whether or not it is really the correct fish being purchased. That is, until recently. As early as 2007 [5] [6], reports revealing that seafood labels were incorrect called attention to something that has been an issue for centuries: fraudulent labeling of the food we eat. Since then, states have been taking steps to ensure that what was once a rampant issue in the seafood industry can-one day- become a faint memory of accidental involvement.

       From a broad overview, the practice of mislabeling seafood is recognized as misbranding under US law [7] and enforced by the FDA. Historically speaking, as far back as the 13th century, the problem of ensuring that food is properly labelled is neither unique to America nor a novel topic. Assisa panis et cervisiae (The Assize of Bread and Ale) is a medieval law from England enacted to ensure-among other things- the quality of bread and beer sold within the kingdom by Henry III [8]. From a less broad, more specific perspective, by enforcing legislation and coding[4] of seafood it is possible to 1) cut down on the amount of misbranding that occurs at ports and across the country and 2) act toward preventing the very real act of economic fraud on a state level [9]. 

          Furthermore, on a basic-and more personal- nutritional level, some of the greatest concerns regarding the consumption of mislabeled seafood arises with one's health. Essentially, everything that looks like 'Red Snapper', 'Grouper' or 'Monck Fish' is not such. Likewise, the consumption of mislabeled fish leads to issues with consuming-sometimes in high amount-fish not meant to frequent consumption. To add to the issue, it becomes difficult to trace where mislabeled fish comes from. With no parameters set in place to determine what the fish is, there is a decreased percentage of being able to figure out what was in the water.

      The phrase: 'There is a shark in the water', then, seems to be somewhat fitting. With the practice of mislabeled fish entering into the US market and appearing on the plates of Americans both at home and in restaurants, there is danger present. Now that legislation is becoming more frequent up and down the East and West coasts-and hopefully growing-distance can be gained. And, the ever pending danger of being 'bitten' from dangers lurking just beneath the ocean's surface is steadily decreased. That being said, though we may be far from walking in to every grocery store in America and purchasing fresh or frozen fish filet from choices with the heads still attached, progress is happening. Lastly, in regards to legislation on the safety of seafood and enforcing anti-fraud actions as a nation it seems that growing consumer awareness in this area is working toward a more source-aware consumer culture that favors proper, dependable labeling more and economic/supplier financial gains less.

-Mandy Emery

     Terms like 'Food' and 'Fraud' are not always heard in the same sentence. The same could also be said about 'Mislabeled' and 'Seafood', and, yet, the topic concerning mislabeled seafood has been raised time and again for a while. From coast to coast, states like Maryland [1] and California [2] have introduced bills against mislabeling seafood as a reaction to something that many would never consider: the fish labelled 'grouper' on your menu might not be grouper at all. In order to overcome the issue of seafood fraud, legislation concerning the safety of seafood has been introduced in Congress [3] to establish national standards for what's brought in, federally, and some have developed codes to ensure that what is on presented for consumption [4] is what the customer has ordered.

       Within the United States, there is a high percentage of seafood that is imported; as high as 92 percent. Of this percentage of imported seafood, a surprising amount-in the past-has been mislabeled, purchased and served across the country without much concern raised about 1) where it originated from, 2) where it was before and during importation to the country and 3) whether or not it is really the correct fish being purchased. That is, until recently. As early as 2007 [5] [6], reports revealing that seafood labels were incorrect called attention to something that has been an issue for centuries: fraudulent labeling of the food we eat. Since then, states have been taking steps to ensure that what was once a rampant issue in the seafood industry can-one day- become a faint memory of accidental involvement.

       From a broad overview, the practice of mislabeling seafood is recognized as misbranding under US law [7] and enforced by the FDA. Historically speaking, as far back as the 13th century, the problem of ensuring that food is properly labelled is neither unique to America nor a novel topic. Assisa panis et cervisiae (The Assize of Bread and Ale) is a medieval law from England enacted to ensure-among other things- the quality of bread and beer sold within the kingdom by Henry III [8]. From a less broad, more specific perspective, by enforcing legislation and coding[4] of seafood it is possible to 1) cut down on the amount of misbranding that occurs at ports and across the country and 2) act toward preventing the very real act of economic fraud on a state level [9]. 

          Furthermore, on a basic-and more personal- nutritional level, some of the greatest concerns regarding the consumption of mislabeled seafood arises with one's health. Essentially, everything that looks like 'Red Snapper', 'Grouper' or 'Monck Fish' is not such. Likewise, the consumption of mislabeled fish leads to issues with consuming-sometimes in high amount-fish not meant to frequent consumption. To add to the issue, it becomes difficult to trace where mislabeled fish comes from. With no parameters set in place to determine what the fish is, there is a decreased percentage of being able to figure out what was in the water.

      The phrase: 'There is a shark in the water', then, seems to be somewhat fitting. With the practice of mislabeled fish entering into the US market and appearing on the plates of Americans both at home and in restaurants, there is danger present. Now that legislation is becoming more frequent up and down the East and West coasts-and hopefully growing-distance can be gained. And, the ever pending danger of being 'bitten' from dangers lurking just beneath the ocean's surface is steadily decreased. That being said, though we may be far from walking in to every grocery store in America and purchasing fresh or frozen fish filet from choices with the heads still attached, progress is happening. Lastly, in regards to legislation on the safety of seafood and enforcing anti-fraud actions as a nation it seems that growing consumer awareness in this area is working toward a more source-aware consumer culture that favors proper, dependable labeling more and economic/supplier financial gains less.

-Mandy Emery

As part of the discussion of Food Law and Policy, one book review is required. The aim? To read, gain knowledge and then review the presentation of a Food Law and Policy related book. Simple enough? In theory. Yet, it seems that following a read of Robert Paarlberg’s Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know of all the information that Paarlberg gives a flurry of acronyms slowly begin to show up and whirl around in one’s subconscious. Moreover, mounting evidence suggesting that the cause of many “food crises” have roots not just in afflicted country’s agricultural and governmental environments, but also in an ever increasing lackluster attempt of empowered nations removing their own biases to address threats to embodying what I deem “agro-humanitarianism”.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to address a major point that may have “popped” up in one’s mind: The review of this work is not intended as a “jab” at Robert Paarlberg’s research, writing or approach to educating an inquiring public on Food Politics. The review of this work, however, is an expression of independent opinions and reactions to the agriculturally founded political climate of both our time and years past. This book review is also not aimed at “solving” problems dealing with world hunger or to present a solution to how to “fix” faulty international exercises of power when it comes to food politics. Instead, this book, as stated before, “is an expression of [my] independent opinions and [feelings concerning] the agriculturally founded political climate [of today]”. With that said, it seems that I am able to begin.

It was once said “Conscience and cowardice are really the same things….Conscience  is the trade-name of the firm. That is all…Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter….The reason I will not exhibit this picture is that I am afraid that I have shown in it the secret of my own soul”. Sound familiar? They should-or at least might-since these words were spoken not by an internationally reknown humanitarian, saint or surprisingly well-spoken “pop star”. Instead, they were spoken by Oscar Wilde through the his characters Lord Henry and the artist Basil Hallward in his book The Picture of Dorian Gray.

But, what does this have to do with Food Politics? Well, everything! (Or, possibly nothing depending on how one is feeling at the time). It may be easier to understand this quote if certain word substitutions allowed for some connections to be readily available in the forefront of one’s mind as follows:

         “Conscience and cowardice [in the world] are really the same things….Conscience is the trade-name of [some world organizations]. That is all…Every [food policy] that is [presented] with feeling is a [policy] of the [NGO], not of the [dominant government]…The reason [we/world governments] will not exhibit [true life-changing policies] is that [we have become complacent with]…[dominant governments] that have shown in [ineffective summits] the secret of [their] own soul[s]”. Too extreme? Too much of a “far stretch”? Reminiscent of the beginnings of “slippery slope”claims by someone who is benefitting from living in a country where food is rich and the burden of concern about those starving thousands miles away in developing countries is poor? Maybe. Yet, if these possibilities were true, would there be any need to review Paarlberg’s work at all? (If you’re answer is no, I invite you to continue reading. If you’re answer is yes, then, -by all means- let this section stand as a “‘D.C.’ al Fine” as I invite you to read Paarlberg’s work and then begin this review again to continue to it’s end).

  AAA…AGRA…BMI…CGIAR…CIMMYT…DSB…LMO…GMO…IMF…FAO…WFP…WTO…WIC… Do any of these acronyms sound familiar? Are any of them easily associated with food both at home and abroad? No? Well, what if they were expanded?

  AAA: Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933

AGRA:Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

BMI: Body Mass Index

CGIAR: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

DSB: Dispute Settlement Body

LMO: Living Modified Organism

GMO: Genetically Modified Organism

IMF: International Monetary Fund

FAO: UN Food and Agriculture Organization

WFP: UN World Food Programme

WTO: World Trade Organization

WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

  Not any better? Understandable. For many of us, Paarlberg introduces organizations, legislation and history that is unheard of. Literally. The things that Paarlberg presents are not so extreme that it is difficult to imagine the ideas behind these entities coming to fruition. It is that Paarlberg leads us through what could easily be an unexpected assault on one’s psyche by an assortment of 3+ alphabetic symbol arrangements that are small on paper, but have a big impact in the 3-D world. And, in this regard, Paarlberg is a Plato-like narrator who helps to shed light on the topic of food politics in a non-confrontational way as we lift our blindfolds and are lead out of our Cave-like existence in the realm of unintentional ignorance.

How? Well, to begin, Paarlberg creates an atmosphere of familiarity between his reader and himself. A well-respected academic with a genuine passion for law and food, Paarlberg is not a distant, jargon expelling voice. Instead, he is informed, in step with the current issues at hand and-of greatest importance-integrated into the debate on agriculture. Simply put, he comes from a family that was both invested in education and in the land.In this way, a tone is set in Food Politics: What Everyone needs to Know that is carried throughout the book. A tone of Q&A introductions and direction through each chapter that does not overshadow one’s own voice in reacting to the information;not the narrator.

Next, there is a removal of guilt from this book that is replaced with something like passion. No, this book has not caused me to change my academic pursuits or abandon my career goals. It has, however, started a fire to understand food politics from the price of produce in the local supermarket to the price of living in a country of commodity-driven food consumption in place of one that is poverty-stricken. Paarlberg opens the door for consumers to “sit-in” on the debates that lobbyists and tomorrow’s agricultural NGO leaders are engaged in.

“I am my brother’s keeper”. These words, taken from Cain, brother of Abel, son of Eve and Adam who was created by God and the first steward of the Earth, have been quoted and changed around to fit scenarios of everything from movies about HLA-matched ‘saviour siblings’ to organization philosophies reminding kids to look/help each other. In relation to Food Politics, these words represent how humanitarian desires, government ambitions, private donors, transnational businesses and foundations and slow to change mentalities about the world’s food environment have reigned true and false for in less that two decades will be one century. (AAA is a 1933 act related to the history of Food Politics. If taking this into consideration as being indicative of how long Food Politics has been a member of the international political baseball team, then it has been at bat, struck out, responsible for a home-run and traded for “flashier” players for far too long.

Food Politics shows itself as a relevant contribution to one’s coffee table and mental library of sources to draw from at the next evening dress required event one attends. Or, it at leasts provides information that can be useful in analyzing the next CNN or BBC presentation of starving people in countries that may or may not be concerned with their nutritional well-being. Food Politics also shows itself to be relevant to how we should see the United States as a player in the international FP Olympics. Thus far, we’ve won gold medals in the Negotiation, Successfully Ignoring others’ needs and Pay the Fines categories. Likewise, we’ve placed high in the Addressing the Needs of the Malnourished, Highlighting Issues in International Agricultural Policy and Still Working on our Own Subsidies divisions as well. What does this mean? It means that Paarlberg’s work successfully addresses the challenges and successes of not only the United States, but also the developed world’s interests in providing for those who need help not only putting food on their tables, but also making sure that everyone makes it to the table for dinner tonight as well.

Food Politics examines the causes behind world hunger and shows, then, to us as being both domestic and international in policy, responsibility and engagement of how to stop it wherever it rears it’s ugly head. The fact that continental approaches to solving hunger in the past for Asia is not the same as solving hunger in the present for Africa is done in an eloquent and enraging manner. How is it that we are not able to help one region when we were able to help another? How did the Green Revolution fail and succeed simultaneously? How can a ‘back to the basics’ approach to food legislation hold the key to going ‘beyond the basics’ of meeting others’ minimal nutritional intakes? The answers to these questions are multifaceted, transnational, multi-climactic and just as agricultural as they are domestic and foreign policy related. And, Paarlberg’s work carefully teases out answers to each one without being too obvious or sugar coating a very real problem: dreamy realities and nutritional distress are affecting everyone.

Finally, Paarlberg’s„ Food Policy exposes the fact that amid the assortment of international and multi-government organizations some have their hands the the food policy cookie jar. Some have their heads in the sands of the developed world. Some have been effective. Some have been all bark and no bite. And, the remaining soldiers standing have been ‘born out of frustration’ with the way their older counterparts failed to rise to the occasion and make sure that a cornucopia became a real feast and not just an insurmountable mountain of ideas for having enough food in every corner of the globe.

        As part of the discussion of Food Law and Policy, one book review is required. The aim? To read, gain knowledge and then review the presentation of a Food Law and Policy related book. Simple enough? In theory. Yet, it seems that following a read of Robert Paarlberg’s Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know of all the information that Paarlberg gives a flurry of acronyms slowly begin to show up and whirl around in one’s subconscious. Moreover, mounting evidence suggesting that the cause of many “food crises” have roots not just in afflicted country’s agricultural and governmental environments, but also in an ever increasing lackluster attempt of empowered nations removing their own biases to address threats to embodying what I deem “agro-humanitarianism”.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to address a major point that may have “popped” up in one’s mind: The review of this work is not intended as a “jab” at Robert Paarlberg’s research, writing or approach to educating an inquiring public on Food Politics. The review of this work, however, is an expression of independent opinions and reactions to the agriculturally founded political climate of both our time and years past. This book review is also not aimed at “solving” problems dealing with world hunger or to present a solution to how to “fix” faulty international exercises of power when it comes to food politics. Instead, this book, as stated before, “is an expression of [my] independent opinions and [feelings concerning] the agriculturally founded political climate [of today]”. With that said, it seems that I am able to begin.

It was once said “Conscience and cowardice are really the same things....Conscience  is the trade-name of the firm. That is all...Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter....The reason I will not exhibit this picture is that I am afraid that I have shown in it the secret of my own soul”. Sound familiar? They should-or at least might-since these words were spoken not by an internationally reknown humanitarian, saint or surprisingly well-spoken “pop star”. Instead, they were spoken by Oscar Wilde through the his characters Lord Henry and the artist Basil Hallward in his book The Picture of Dorian Gray.

But, what does this have to do with Food Politics? Well, everything! (Or, possibly nothing depending on how one is feeling at the time). It may be easier to understand this quote if certain word substitutions allowed for some connections to be readily available in the forefront of one’s mind as follows:

         “Conscience and cowardice [in the world] are really the same things....Conscience is the trade-name of [some world organizations]. That is all...Every [food policy] that is [presented] with feeling is a [policy] of the [NGO], not of the [dominant government]...The reason [we/world governments] will not exhibit [true life-changing policies] is that [we have become complacent with]...[dominant governments] that have shown in [ineffective summits] the secret of [their] own soul[s]”. Too extreme? Too much of a “far stretch”? Reminiscent of the beginnings of “slippery slope”claims by someone who is benefitting from living in a country where food is rich and the burden of concern about those starving thousands miles away in developing countries is poor? Maybe. Yet, if these possibilities were true, would there be any need to review Paarlberg’s work at all? (If you’re answer is no, I invite you to continue reading. If you’re answer is yes, then, -by all means- let this section stand as a “‘D.C.’ al Fine” as I invite you to read Paarlberg’s work and then begin this review again to continue to it’s end).

  AAA...AGRA...BMI...CGIAR...CIMMYT...DSB...LMO...GMO...IMF...FAO...WFP...WTO...WIC... Do any of these acronyms sound familiar? Are any of them easily associated with food both at home and abroad? No? Well, what if they were expanded?

  AAA: Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933

AGRA:Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

BMI: Body Mass Index

CGIAR: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

DSB: Dispute Settlement Body

LMO: Living Modified Organism

GMO: Genetically Modified Organism

IMF: International Monetary Fund

FAO: UN Food and Agriculture Organization

WFP: UN World Food Programme

WTO: World Trade Organization

WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

  Not any better? Understandable. For many of us, Paarlberg introduces organizations, legislation and history that is unheard of. Literally. The things that Paarlberg presents are not so extreme that it is difficult to imagine the ideas behind these entities coming to fruition. It is that Paarlberg leads us through what could easily be an unexpected assault on one’s psyche by an assortment of 3+ alphabetic symbol arrangements that are small on paper, but have a big impact in the 3-D world. And, in this regard, Paarlberg is a Plato-like narrator who helps to shed light on the topic of food politics in a non-confrontational way as we lift our blindfolds and are lead out of our Cave-like existence in the realm of unintentional ignorance.

How? Well, to begin, Paarlberg creates an atmosphere of familiarity between his reader and himself. A well-respected academic with a genuine passion for law and food, Paarlberg is not a distant, jargon expelling voice. Instead, he is informed, in step with the current issues at hand and-of greatest importance-integrated into the debate on agriculture. Simply put, he comes from a family that was both invested in education and in the land.In this way, a tone is set in Food Politics: What Everyone needs to Know that is carried throughout the book. A tone of Q&A introductions and direction through each chapter that does not overshadow one’s own voice in reacting to the information;not the narrator.

Next, there is a removal of guilt from this book that is replaced with something like passion. No, this book has not caused me to change my academic pursuits or abandon my career goals. It has, however, started a fire to understand food politics from the price of produce in the local supermarket to the price of living in a country of commodity-driven food consumption in place of one that is poverty-stricken. Paarlberg opens the door for consumers to “sit-in” on the debates that lobbyists and tomorrow’s agricultural NGO leaders are engaged in.

“I am my brother’s keeper”. These words, taken from Cain, brother of Abel, son of Eve and Adam who was created by God and the first steward of the Earth, have been quoted and changed around to fit scenarios of everything from movies about HLA-matched ‘saviour siblings’ to organization philosophies reminding kids to look/help each other. In relation to Food Politics, these words represent how humanitarian desires, government ambitions, private donors, transnational businesses and foundations and slow to change mentalities about the world’s food environment have reigned true and false for in less that two decades will be one century. (AAA is a 1933 act related to the history of Food Politics. If taking this into consideration as being indicative of how long Food Politics has been a member of the international political baseball team, then it has been at bat, struck out, responsible for a home-run and traded for “flashier” players for far too long.

Food Politics shows itself as a relevant contribution to one’s coffee table and mental library of sources to draw from at the next evening dress required event one attends. Or, it at leasts provides information that can be useful in analyzing the next CNN or BBC presentation of starving people in countries that may or may not be concerned with their nutritional well-being. Food Politics also shows itself to be relevant to how we should see the United States as a player in the international FP Olympics. Thus far, we’ve won gold medals in the Negotiation, Successfully Ignoring others’ needs and Pay the Fines categories. Likewise, we’ve placed high in the Addressing the Needs of the Malnourished, Highlighting Issues in International Agricultural Policy and Still Working on our Own Subsidies divisions as well. What does this mean? It means that Paarlberg’s work successfully addresses the challenges and successes of not only the United States, but also the developed world’s interests in providing for those who need help not only putting food on their tables, but also making sure that everyone makes it to the table for dinner tonight as well.

Food Politics examines the causes behind world hunger and shows, then, to us as being both domestic and international in policy, responsibility and engagement of how to stop it wherever it rears it’s ugly head. The fact that continental approaches to solving hunger in the past for Asia is not the same as solving hunger in the present for Africa is done in an eloquent and enraging manner. How is it that we are not able to help one region when we were able to help another? How did the Green Revolution fail and succeed simultaneously? How can a ‘back to the basics’ approach to food legislation hold the key to going ‘beyond the basics’ of meeting others’ minimal nutritional intakes? The answers to these questions are multifaceted, transnational, multi-climactic and just as agricultural as they are domestic and foreign policy related. And, Paarlberg’s work carefully teases out answers to each one without being too obvious or sugar coating a very real problem: dreamy realities and nutritional distress are affecting everyone.

Finally, Paarlberg’s,, Food Policy exposes the fact that amid the assortment of international and multi-government organizations some have their hands the the food policy cookie jar. Some have their heads in the sands of the developed world. Some have been effective. Some have been all bark and no bite. And, the remaining soldiers standing have been ‘born out of frustration’ with the way their older counterparts failed to rise to the occasion and make sure that a cornucopia became a real feast and not just an insurmountable mountain of ideas for having enough food in every corner of the globe.

      For many of us, the concept of sharing our resources is something that has been ingrained. From an early age we have been told, reminded- at times even pressured-by our parents to share our toys with those around us. Although, for some of us the concept of sharing what we have with others seemed to be more innate than coerced even from the beginning of recognizing that it is something that can be done (Reference to self as a way to highlight early signs of thinking of other? Unashamedly so).

     Similar concepts can be applied beyond such juvenile lessons. For example, if our brother is sick; we should give him medicine. If our sister is cold; we should give her a blanket. IF we are all hungry; we should work to not be hungry. Or, at least we should seek help in order to obtain it. Right? Well, maybe not...

   Over the last few weeks, there have been several topics relating to 'Eating with Ethics' (Comiendo con Etica) that show that this concept is not as far reaching as it would seem. Of greatest interest seems to be the topic of EBT/WIC as a federal program that, lately, has seemed to take hold of my attention most in the forefront of my mind. Well, actually, this may not be entirely true. Thoughts concerning the legal benefit, but realistic deficiencies of the Federal EBT/WIC program have always occurred to me. Analyzing the dichotomy between black and white words On the Books and the realities of not having enough On the Table in Living Color has always-in some ways-inspired and Irritated me. 

    But, why? Maybe it is because I believe that the law should work for the people. For our benefit. For our safety. For our health. For our overall 'wellness of being'. This, however, may just be an antiquated ideal that is out of place today and relates to how certain laws have been created to aide, but still seem to not be serving the proper purpose of why they were enacted after they should have. It's almost as if planting a fig tree, waiting seven years and still not seeing the benefits of planting the tree in the beginning: To have figs and shade, Not an organic structure which saps resources and evolves from a hope of life to a skeleton of what once was. Never was. Is still growing each year to be, yet never makes it. 

     Wait. Maybe it's not the fig trees fault. In retrospect, maybe the issues that I have identified as Inspiring and Irritating as they relate to the Federal EBT/WIC are not rooted in the program itself. Could it be that it is not the seed that has been sown, nor the plant that has grown yet has failed to bear fruit (benefit for the people), but the gardener? The individual(s) charged with pruning, watering and monitoring the plant? Is it that the deficiencies within this Federal program result from the way the EBT/WIC has been formed? The way that it has been amended?

    Cause of Pause. Maybe the issue is not so much in the planting of the fig tree, it's maintenance and pruning or how much sun it gets. Maybe the issue is the soil. The culture that the tree is continuing to grow in, being effected by a culture of systematic fraud, denial of aide to those in true need and the pestilence of a reluctance to change; a laissez-faire mentality of laziness, ignorance and 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality that allows one to eat 5 times a day and afford 2 million in coffee donuts with tax dollars....While trapping another in a cycle of mental poverty, social injustice and malnutrition of the body and soul. 

   Too much credit is being given here, however. And, not enough is being acknowledged. It is my personal opinion, though, that it would be impossible to address both sides and still stay on topic. So, I regress to Limits of the original variables of this posts 'Comiendo con Etica' equation: x+y=DNE. eXtant Federal EBT/WIC laws + Lack of adequate equalitY in implementation and maintenance = has resulted in a 'Does Not Exist' result in proper sharing of resources and provision of food (a basic human need) for our American brothers and sisters. (Recognize that I am reducing- and manipulating- to an almost disrespectful level mathematical rules used to connect the equation with the point).

   I know what someone could be thinking: "How can you say that something is broken if someone has a fixed way of misusing it?" "Why aren't you acknowledging that the problem is in the people and not the law?". Well, both questions can lead to truth. However, any question could lead to truth as the same time. Obviously, a system is not as broken as one would believe if some are being helped and others are actively misusing it to their benefit. Simultaneously, there are problems with the people when the actions of a few create problems for many. There is no 'cut and dry' solution, unfortunately, to address any issue. Thankfully, there are ways to point out issues in order to re-focus one's vision on the holes in the the books.

     And, what would some of these points be? Well...

     1) In order to receive benefits an individual must not have a criminal record

      Issue?

      The nuclear family, an institution that at one point in time was more American that America itself is disrupted. How? Well, if the husband, boyfriend, male partner or father of a child is convicted of a certain crime, he is no longer an eligible or potential recipient of EBT.

      What harm would this cause?

      Well, there's a harm to the child, the mother and the family structure as it is. Without the father's income or presence, familial lines can become skewed or disintegrate. An ineligible individual cannot or should not be receiving benefits of living in a household that receives SNAP/EBT/WIC as a government assistance. 

       Over time, a single mother-multi-child-multi-father household could emerge. And, no, one individuals choice should not be the reason to change an entire program, but when millions are caught in the midst of such a storm, shouldn't someone be in charge of making sure the ships at sea have a light to guide them?

     2) SNAP/EBT/WIC eligibility automatically qualifies an individual to be a candidate for Free and Reduced lunch. This means that when a  child begins school, meals can be provided without additional funds leaving a household already in need of assistance. As a result, WIC stops for those mothers who have been receiving vouchers to provide food for their children. 

      Issue?

      The cut-off age for WIC is 5 years old. Some children start school at 6 years old because of the date that their birthday falls on in relation to cut-offs for when a child should begin Kindergarten. This means that for those children who age out of WIC, their mothers/families must now determine how they will supplement losses in assistance for food coming in to the home. If there are no resources, what is one to do? If there is a younger sibling(s) who receive WIC shouldn't there be enough to go around? You tell me, if you go to an 'All-You-Can-Eat' buffet ready to feed 10 people single servings and invite ten more with a growing appetites will there be enough to go around? Nope. 

       Somehow we must recognize that the idea of the Welfare Queen who produces children in an effort to maintain her eligibility for various services should be laid to rest along with other false ideals that have been portrayed in popular culture, but do not actually play out the same in real life. Such as the idea that a correctional institution is meant to correct behavior so that an individual can become a productive member of society and not a repeat offender. (See any similarities?)

    3) Women who are on WIC are eligible even if they have a record. The idea is that the child should not suffer because of the mother's action. The child can, potentially, become a productive member of society. Women who breastfeed are able to receive vouchers for fresh produce and other staples for a year. Women who do not receive vouchers for six months and then only receive vouchers for the child. 

     Issue?

     What about the mothers who are not able to breastfeed because of things such as HIV/AIDS infection and the fact that the virus can be transmitted through breastfeeding? What about the women who, without assistance in purchasing foods, will be malnourished themselves and unable to properly care for a growing child?

   Furthermore, what about those who recognize that the produce vouchers are not that great. Why not? $6 or $10 dollars (as fit the rate of vouchers that I have seen) does not get you very far in produce "years". There are also no coupons to reduce 4.99/lb grapes to .89/lb to increase how much you can get. Can you use WIC (or EBT) at a Farmer's Market? Sure. Can you get there and then ensure that the produce and groceries is fresh when you get back home on Public Transportation? NO.

   There are some things that must be fixed in order to increase the efficacy of programs such as WIC. WIC is meant to help mothers learn how to feed their families better foods. WIC, however, and what can be purchased with the voucher is not always the best. Lots of milk, little bread. No meat. Dried beans. No proper pots, pans or time to cook them. Canned foods! Packed in salt, corn syrup, water and other chemicals to "preserve freshness" so that it's far from Organic? 

      For many of us, the concept of sharing our resources is something that has been ingrained. From an early age we have been told, reminded- at times even pressured-by our parents to share our toys with those around us. Although, for some of us the concept of sharing what we have with others seemed to be more innate than coerced even from the beginning of recognizing that it is something that can be done (Reference to self as a way to highlight early signs of thinking of other? Unashamedly so).

     Similar concepts can be applied beyond such juvenile lessons. For example, if our brother is sick; we should give him medicine. If our sister is cold; we should give her a blanket. IF we are all hungry; we should work to not be hungry. Or, at least we should seek help in order to obtain it. Right? Well, maybe not...

   Over the last few weeks, there have been several topics relating to 'Eating with Ethics' (Comiendo con Etica) that show that this concept is not as far reaching as it would seem. Of greatest interest seems to be the topic of EBT/WIC as a federal program that, lately, has seemed to take hold of my attention most in the forefront of my mind. Well, actually, this may not be entirely true. Thoughts concerning the legal benefit, but realistic deficiencies of the Federal EBT/WIC program have always occurred to me. Analyzing the dichotomy between black and white words On the Books and the realities of not having enough On the Table in Living Color has always-in some ways-inspired and Irritated me. 

    But, why? Maybe it is because I believe that the law should work for the people. For our benefit. For our safety. For our health. For our overall 'wellness of being'. This, however, may just be an antiquated ideal that is out of place today and relates to how certain laws have been created to aide, but still seem to not be serving the proper purpose of why they were enacted after they should have. It's almost as if planting a fig tree, waiting seven years and still not seeing the benefits of planting the tree in the beginning: To have figs and shade, Not an organic structure which saps resources and evolves from a hope of life to a skeleton of what once was. Never was. Is still growing each year to be, yet never makes it. 

     Wait. Maybe it's not the fig trees fault. In retrospect, maybe the issues that I have identified as Inspiring and Irritating as they relate to the Federal EBT/WIC are not rooted in the program itself. Could it be that it is not the seed that has been sown, nor the plant that has grown yet has failed to bear fruit (benefit for the people), but the gardener? The individual(s) charged with pruning, watering and monitoring the plant? Is it that the deficiencies within this Federal program result from the way the EBT/WIC has been formed? The way that it has been amended?

    Cause of Pause. Maybe the issue is not so much in the planting of the fig tree, it's maintenance and pruning or how much sun it gets. Maybe the issue is the soil. The culture that the tree is continuing to grow in, being effected by a culture of systematic fraud, denial of aide to those in true need and the pestilence of a reluctance to change; a laissez-faire mentality of laziness, ignorance and 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality that allows one to eat 5 times a day and afford 2 million in coffee donuts with tax dollars....While trapping another in a cycle of mental poverty, social injustice and malnutrition of the body and soul. 

   Too much credit is being given here, however. And, not enough is being acknowledged. It is my personal opinion, though, that it would be impossible to address both sides and still stay on topic. So, I regress to Limits of the original variables of this posts 'Comiendo con Etica' equation: x+y=DNE. eXtant Federal EBT/WIC laws + Lack of adequate equalitY in implementation and maintenance = has resulted in a 'Does Not Exist' result in proper sharing of resources and provision of food (a basic human need) for our American brothers and sisters. (Recognize that I am reducing- and manipulating- to an almost disrespectful level mathematical rules used to connect the equation with the point).

   I know what someone could be thinking: "How can you say that something is broken if someone has a fixed way of misusing it?" "Why aren't you acknowledging that the problem is in the people and not the law?". Well, both questions can lead to truth. However, any question could lead to truth as the same time. Obviously, a system is not as broken as one would believe if some are being helped and others are actively misusing it to their benefit. Simultaneously, there are problems with the people when the actions of a few create problems for many. There is no 'cut and dry' solution, unfortunately, to address any issue. Thankfully, there are ways to point out issues in order to re-focus one's vision on the holes in the the books.

     And, what would some of these points be? Well...

     1) In order to receive benefits an individual must not have a criminal record

      Issue?

      The nuclear family, an institution that at one point in time was more American that America itself is disrupted. How? Well, if the husband, boyfriend, male partner or father of a child is convicted of a certain crime, he is no longer an eligible or potential recipient of EBT.

      What harm would this cause?

      Well, there's a harm to the child, the mother and the family structure as it is. Without the father's income or presence, familial lines can become skewed or disintegrate. An ineligible individual cannot or should not be receiving benefits of living in a household that receives SNAP/EBT/WIC as a government assistance. 

       Over time, a single mother-multi-child-multi-father household could emerge. And, no, one individuals choice should not be the reason to change an entire program, but when millions are caught in the midst of such a storm, shouldn't someone be in charge of making sure the ships at sea have a light to guide them?

     2) SNAP/EBT/WIC eligibility automatically qualifies an individual to be a candidate for Free and Reduced lunch. This means that when a  child begins school, meals can be provided without additional funds leaving a household already in need of assistance. As a result, WIC stops for those mothers who have been receiving vouchers to provide food for their children. 

      Issue?

      The cut-off age for WIC is 5 years old. Some children start school at 6 years old because of the date that their birthday falls on in relation to cut-offs for when a child should begin Kindergarten. This means that for those children who age out of WIC, their mothers/families must now determine how they will supplement losses in assistance for food coming in to the home. If there are no resources, what is one to do? If there is a younger sibling(s) who receive WIC shouldn't there be enough to go around? You tell me, if you go to an 'All-You-Can-Eat' buffet ready to feed 10 people single servings and invite ten more with a growing appetites will there be enough to go around? Nope. 

       Somehow we must recognize that the idea of the Welfare Queen who produces children in an effort to maintain her eligibility for various services should be laid to rest along with other false ideals that have been portrayed in popular culture, but do not actually play out the same in real life. Such as the idea that a correctional institution is meant to correct behavior so that an individual can become a productive member of society and not a repeat offender. (See any similarities?)

    3) Women who are on WIC are eligible even if they have a record. The idea is that the child should not suffer because of the mother's action. The child can, potentially, become a productive member of society. Women who breastfeed are able to receive vouchers for fresh produce and other staples for a year. Women who do not receive vouchers for six months and then only receive vouchers for the child. 

     Issue?

     What about the mothers who are not able to breastfeed because of things such as HIV/AIDS infection and the fact that the virus can be transmitted through breastfeeding? What about the women who, without assistance in purchasing foods, will be malnourished themselves and unable to properly care for a growing child?

   Furthermore, what about those who recognize that the produce vouchers are not that great. Why not? $6 or $10 dollars (as fit the rate of vouchers that I have seen) does not get you very far in produce "years". There are also no coupons to reduce 4.99/lb grapes to .89/lb to increase how much you can get. Can you use WIC (or EBT) at a Farmer's Market? Sure. Can you get there and then ensure that the produce and groceries is fresh when you get back home on Public Transportation? NO.

   There are some things that must be fixed in order to increase the efficacy of programs such as WIC. WIC is meant to help mothers learn how to feed their families better foods. WIC, however, and what can be purchased with the voucher is not always the best. Lots of milk, little bread. No meat. Dried beans. No proper pots, pans or time to cook them. Canned foods! Packed in salt, corn syrup, water and other chemicals to "preserve freshness" so that it's far from Organic?