Taking mandarin oranges out of Christmas

The totalitarian agenda of the 100-mile diet

Michael Silicz, Staff

When I wake up in the morning, I like to start my day off with a delicious, hearty breakfast. And when I say hearty, I sure mean hearty. After all, breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

My breakfast of champions incorporates a wide variety of delicious foods from many different parts of the world. I start off by pouring a big bowl of my Kellogg’s Vector cereal (a product of grains grown and amalgamated in Western Canada). I then add some California-grown grapes and a banana from Guatemala into the mix and douse the whole mixture in a lake of skim milk from Calgary. I apply hearty amounts Saskatoon berry jam to my delectable City Rye toast and I savour each scrumptious piece of American bacon I scarf down. Finally, I wash my wholesome meal down with a glass of 100 per cent pure premium Tropicana thick pulp OJ, courtesy of the fine farmers of southern Florida. And what, may I ask, is wrong with that?

Well my friends, there are people out there who don’t want me to eat this breakfast; and the reason is not because of its high level of cholesterol. Rather, there exists a small, dissident, and radical faction of individuals, cloaked within the multicultural mosaic of our fine Canadian society, that do not want you or I to enjoy this home-style breakfast at all. Who exactly are these people, you ask?

Why, they are none other than the extremists of the 100-mile diet.

At 100milediet.org, you can learn how most food travels 1,500 miles before reaching your plate. You can also find out how much better local food apparently tastes and how buying local food supposedly supports your local economy. But best of all, you can discover how to “save the world” by eating locally, simply by eating within a 100-mile radius of your home.

The entire philosophy behind the 100-mile diet is flawed. The fact that our food travels 1,500 miles should not be frowned upon. Rather, that food can travel so far and so fast goes to show the greatness of the society in which we live. It demonstrates the power of globalization and the rapid rise of consumer purchasing power. It is a testament to our way of life. Sure, it takes a lot of fossil fuel for food to transverse the globe, but the battle against global warming is not going to be won by changing our eating habits.

From Polish sausage from Stettin in the Baltic to Italian pastas from Trieste in the Adriatic, the supporters of the 100-mile diet want an iron curtain to descended across our dinner tables.

Furthermore, by buying from local farmers rather than from the cheaper international market, the natural forces of economics are being suppressed in vain. Instead of letting the market set the natural price for produce (which already includes the cost of transportation in the price), 100-mile diet advocates are foolishly making the same old argument against liberal trade that’s been made for over a century and a half. Fortunately, this nationalist argument was argued and lost all the way back in 1846, when fat cat British farmers lost their fight to protect and subsidize their market share against international grain growers.

These heartless monsters not only oppose the fine effects of globalization and the liberalization of trade, but they also want to take the fun out of your life, too. Plain and simple, the 100-mile diet would deprive us all of the comforts of modernity that we have all become accustomed to, simply because most of our food comes from far away. If the 100-mile dieters had their way, we would be denied access to foreign ales and lagers. Could you possibly imagine the dystopia we would live in had we only crappy Fort Gary Pale Ale and Albino Rhino beer to drink from? Or try to imagine a life without chocolate from Belgium. Worst of all, can you fathom having Christmas without Chinese mandarin oranges? Well, if the advocates of the 100-mile diet get their way, that’s exactly what will happen!

I’ll tell you what, 100-mile dieters: my forefathers didn’t defend democracy against the Nazis and the Soviets so that you could enforce your silly dietary beliefs upon me.

From Polish sausage from Stettin in the Baltic to Italian pastas from Trieste in the Adriatic, the supporters of the 100-mile diet want an iron curtain to descend across our dinner tables. It’s up to you and me to oppose them at all costs. So the next time you bite into an Annapolis Valley apple or devour some P.E.I. french fries, remember: you’re not just eating yummy food, you’re defending both the freedom of choice and trade liberalization from the reactionary forces of the 100-mile diet. And hopefully you’re enjoying a hearty breakfast to boot.

Michael Silicz is the comment editor of the Manitoban and is a student of law and political studies.





Volume 95 Issue 18	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	January 16, 2008

Home About Us Advertising Rates Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Volunteer Online Classifieds St. Vincent's Academy Diaries	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly Taking mandarin oranges out of Christmas The totalitarian agenda of the 100-mile diet Michael Silicz, Staff When I wake up in the morning, I like to start my day off with a delicious, hearty breakfast. And when I say hearty, I sure mean hearty. After all, breakfast is the most important meal of the day. My breakfast of champions incorporates a wide variety of delicious foods from many different parts of the world. I start off by pouring a big bowl of my Kellogg’s Vector cereal (a product of grains grown and amalgamated in Western Canada). I then add some California-grown grapes and a banana from Guatemala into the mix and douse the whole mixture in a lake of skim milk from Calgary. I apply hearty amounts Saskatoon berry jam to my delectable City Rye toast and I savour each scrumptious piece of American bacon I scarf down. Finally, I wash my wholesome meal down with a glass of 100 per cent pure premium Tropicana thick pulp OJ, courtesy of the fine farmers of southern Florida. And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? Well my friends, there are people out there who don’t want me to eat this breakfast; and the reason is not because of its high level of cholesterol. Rather, there exists a small, dissident, and radical faction of individuals, cloaked within the multicultural mosaic of our fine Canadian society, that do not want you or I to enjoy this home-style breakfast at all. Who exactly are these people, you ask? Why, they are none other than the extremists of the 100-mile diet. At 100milediet.org, you can learn how most food travels 1,500 miles before reaching your plate. You can also find out how much better local food apparently tastes and how buying local food supposedly supports your local economy. But best of all, you can discover how to “save the world” by eating locally, simply by eating within a 100-mile radius of your home. The entire philosophy behind the 100-mile diet is flawed. The fact that our food travels 1,500 miles should not be frowned upon. Rather, that food can travel so far and so fast goes to show the greatness of the society in which we live. It demonstrates the power of globalization and the rapid rise of consumer purchasing power. It is a testament to our way of life. Sure, it takes a lot of fossil fuel for food to transverse the globe, but the battle against global warming is not going to be won by changing our eating habits. From Polish sausage from Stettin in the Baltic to Italian pastas from Trieste in the Adriatic, the supporters of the 100-mile diet want an iron curtain to descended across our dinner tables. Furthermore, by buying from local farmers rather than from the cheaper international market, the natural forces of economics are being suppressed in vain. Instead of letting the market set the natural price for produce (which already includes the cost of transportation in the price), 100-mile diet advocates are foolishly making the same old argument against liberal trade that’s been made for over a century and a half. Fortunately, this nationalist argument was argued and lost all the way back in 1846, when fat cat British farmers lost their fight to protect and subsidize their market share against international grain growers. These heartless monsters not only oppose the fine effects of globalization and the liberalization of trade, but they also want to take the fun out of your life, too. Plain and simple, the 100-mile diet would deprive us all of the comforts of modernity that we have all become accustomed to, simply because most of our food comes from far away. If the 100-mile dieters had their way, we would be denied access to foreign ales and lagers. Could you possibly imagine the dystopia we would live in had we only crappy Fort Gary Pale Ale and Albino Rhino beer to drink from? Or try to imagine a life without chocolate from Belgium. Worst of all, can you fathom having Christmas without Chinese mandarin oranges? Well, if the advocates of the 100-mile diet get their way, that’s exactly what will happen! I’ll tell you what, 100-mile dieters: my forefathers didn’t defend democracy against the Nazis and the Soviets so that you could enforce your silly dietary beliefs upon me. From Polish sausage from Stettin in the Baltic to Italian pastas from Trieste in the Adriatic, the supporters of the 100-mile diet want an iron curtain to descend across our dinner tables. It’s up to you and me to oppose them at all costs. So the next time you bite into an Annapolis Valley apple or devour some P.E.I. french fries, remember: you’re not just eating yummy food, you’re defending both the freedom of choice and trade liberalization from the reactionary forces of the 100-mile diet. And hopefully you’re enjoying a hearty breakfast to boot. Michael Silicz is the comment editor of the Manitoban and is a student of law and political studies.


Terms of Use RSS Feeds © Copyright 2008 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation