Sarah Elton — journalist-turned-academic and author of Locavore — argues that genuine food security requires expanding our definition of 'all' to include not just every human being but every organism and ecosystem that sustains the food system. Drawing on posthumanist theory, microbiology, and years of empirical research, she makes the case that health is not a condition possessed by individual bodies but a property that exists across socioecological systems. The conversation traces her intellectual journey from covering the local food movement to situating the human colon inside the food system itself.

Show notes:

Sarah Elton is a researcher, writer, and academic whose career has moved from CBC journalism and long-form books — including her 2010 work Locavore — through a PhD and into teaching and research at the intersection of food systems, ecological public health, and posthumanist theory. In this episode, she and host Jesse Hirsh take up a deceptively simple question: who, or what, does a food system actually need to feed? The answer Elton arrives at is far more expansive than conventional food-security discourse allows, and it reframes the entire project of building a resilient Canadian agri-food sector.

Elton's first key move is to challenge the boundary between the human body and the food system. Drawing on emerging microbiology, she argues that the colon — and the microbial communities that inhabit it — should be understood as constituent parts of the food system, not merely endpoints of it. Microorganisms synthesise metabolites, reduce inflammation, and mediate how humans are nourished; severing them analytically from 'the food system' is, in her words, absurd. This posthumanist framing, in which humans are placed on the same ontological plane as plants, microbes, soil, and wind rather than above them, is not merely philosophical provocation. It has direct implications for how researchers, policymakers, and producers define sustainability: a system that degrades its microbial and ecological substrates is undermining its own capacity to feed anyone.

A second tension running through the conversation is the gap between the language of local food and its political deployment. Elton was writing about localism and food sovereignty before farmer's markets became supermarket aesthetics, and she offers a nuanced read of what has changed. She notes that nationalist sentiment triggered by trade threats with the United States has produced a surge in buy-Canadian feeling and, more concretely, a federal food security strategy backed by over three billion dollars in new commitments — a scale of state investment she says she could not have predicted. Yet she is careful to distinguish the grassroots goals of the local food movement from the mechanisms a state-led strategy will actually use, and she is equally careful to distinguish rhetorical sustainability from the ecological grounding she believes genuine food security requires. Co-optation of the language, she suggests, does not automatically deliver the substance.

Listeners will come away with a richer vocabulary for thinking about what Canada's agri-food sector is actually trying to sustain — and for whom. Elton's work is a reminder that the sector's most pressing knowledge gaps are not always technical; sometimes they are conceptual, rooted in frameworks that draw the boundaries of 'the food system' too narrowly and too anthropocentrically. At a moment when federal dollars, nationalist energy, and climate pressure are converging on Canadian food policy simultaneously, her ecological public health perspective offers both a corrective and a constructive direction for leaders across the sector.

Topics: Food Security Policy, Ecological Public Health, Posthumanist Theory, Microbiome and Food Systems, Local Food Movement, Socioecological Systems, Canadian Agri-Food Leadership

Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsch.

Welcome to the Future Herd.

Today's episode marks perhaps a kind of turning point.

Uh, in terms of the mission of this podcast.

Our focus has always been on the future of the AgriFood system, but

our lens in pursuing that future has been on leadership, the role of

leadership across the sector, and in particular the diverse forms and means

by which that leadership manifests.

And today's guest, Sarah Elton, is no exception.

Sarah is an incredibly talented, ridiculously smart and particularly

incisive when it comes to not only having a, a, a curiosity of systems, but a

literacy of those systems, an ability to explain those systems to people who

are both inside and outside of them.

And of course, agriculture.

AgriFood is a very system centric sector.

Every farmer understands the systems they run on their farm.

Every processor understands the systems that produce food.

And Sarah really brings it back down to fundamentals, to foundations of both a

society, but also science and values.

And I kind of describe this as a turning point because I feel after a bit of a

heat induced and holiday break that the future herd is really starting to shape,

take form, starting to, uh, have a, a certain sense of mission, which hasn't

changed in terms of understanding the future of the AgriFood sector, but it

also recognises why the sector needs more people, more talent, more perspective.

And Sarah Elton brings that in spade.

I mean, this is someone whose career started, uh, in journalism.

Uh, uh, moved from there into sort of long form writing, then into academia.

Now in the height of research and teaching and writing, this is exactly

the kind of leader that the AgriFood sector should be courting, should be

embracing, should be empowering because the perspectives that Sarah brings really

fills a lot of the missing pieces, a lot of the gaps, a a, a lot of the missed

opportunities when it comes to turning Canada into an AgriFood powerhouse.

That may seem a little paradoxical once you wade into the depths

of this fantastic episode.

But I'm saying this as kind of a preview of where I suspect this podcast is

going to be moving forward when it comes to not only speculating on the

future of the AgriFood sector, but actually implementing, executing, and

deploying the future of the AgriFood sector here on the future herd.

Alright, that's enough hype.

This is another one of those fire episodes that you're gonna wanna listen to.

. So, uh, let's tune in.

Sarah, welcome to the Future Herd.

Thanks, Jesse.

I'm very happy to be here.

Now, uh, I think this episode will be a little different

from the others in that you and I have known each other for quite some

time, and I encourage you today to do what I'm gonna do, which is partly

catch up and get to know, uh, all the fascinating things that you've been up to.

Because as a researcher, you seem to connect systems, not just study

systems, but connect systems in a way that not a lot of researchers do.

Uh, and granted, I've been interviewing researchers on this podcast, as you

know, and they may take a systems view, but I kind of feel you're the

first to take a, for lack of a better phrase, like a meta systems view.

So, as a kind of starting off question, although let me pause

right there and say that'll be the second question I almost forgot.

The first question of every episode of the Future Herd is a very abstract

kind of RAR shot test style of what does the future mean to you?

People usually answer with a sigh.

Yes.

I'm not really feeling great about the future right now.

Um, I'm actually trying not to think about the future because it's truly crushing.

If we think of the, you know, interconnections of climate

change, inequality, war, uh, fascism, um, ai, um, what else?

What am I, what am I missing?

I'm sure I'm sure.

I, um, so to work and survive as a very privileged, fortunate person who

lives an extraordinary good life at the time of multiple collapses, um, I

just try to be in the moment and, um, appreciate, I know this sounds might

sound funny, but the seasons and really appreciate my bio region and where I

am, um, as a way of, you know, count.

Like not thinking about the bad stuff.

That said, right now my bioregion is having a major windstorm and so that is

like a little inflaming of one's anxiety.

I, I, I hear you.

I also got a tornado warning, uh, uh, today, although I, I,

I think our conversation may be safe before that extreme weather

hits me in Eastern Ontario.

Um, but we've already kind of evoked systems and, and I sort of, I was

so eager to start getting you to kind of talk about your approach to

systems and how you connect systems I almost forgot that first question.

And to your point, people's answers to that question are,

are really excellent icebreakers.

'cause they evoke systems and they evoke our relationship with systems

which not everyone's conscious of.

You are with other guests.

I kind of have to tease it out.

what I, I think as long as I've known you, you've been interested in systems.

So I guess the larger question is, when did you start connecting them?

Like when in your, either journalism or your research or your teaching, did

you start realising the real fun is not just studying a single system, but

looking at how multiple systems kind of interconnect and play with each other.

Well, that's such an interesting question, Jesse.

I don't know, uh, because I've never thought of it that way, but certainly

when I was writing books as a journalist, I loved to write about systems.

Like that was so cool to see how the, and learn about how the

industrial food system worked.

And as a journalist, it's, you have this wonderful opportunity to learn

by calling up people and asking if you can come and spend some time with them.

And now I know, 'cause I'm an academic, not everybody gets the same opportunity.

So you could go to, I went to, you know, a green elevator and supermarkets and

farms around, like, literally around the world and on many continents,

and learned about the food system by interviewing people and talking to

people, and also reading scientific papers and putting all that together.

And I wrote a couple books about that and that's what inspired me to go back to

school, to do a PhD. Um, because I felt like, I'm like, oh, I need to, I wanna

be doing the research that I'm now, I'm writing about other people's research.

I wanna do the research myself.

So that's when I went back to, to university.

And I didn't end up doing what I thought I was going to be doing because I, I

learned about post humanist theory.

And so I think the answer to your question lies in reading about how

about philosophy that makes the human, um, takes the human what they say

on the same ontological plane that means nothing to 99.9% of people.

But that is the seeing the human as not more important than other life forms and

ecosystems on the planet to see the, the human being as equally as, um, as uh, uh,

having agency like can make things happen just as much as the wind right now is, is

perhaps making the internet connection.

So I can't really see your face 'cause because it's blurry, uh, because of,

of the, that's the agency of the wind.

And, and um, and, and so that, that entry into this world of what is

called critical social science and and critical theory really was super fun

and exciting and helped me to think with what we call more than humans,

which are all the life forms and things that get categorised as nature and.

I started my, did my PhD thinking about plants in people.

And now, um, in the last few years I've been working with

microorganisms in people.

And then I realised, I was like, wait a second, we can't even, how

can I even separate these things?

It's absurd.

Like it's all like, I am plants, I am microbiome, um, because

I be through the food system.

So that's, right now I'm working, like this morning I spent working on, um,

uh, talk I'm giving next week where I'll be, uh, talking about how, um, the,

the, the, the colon making the argument that the colon actually should be

considered to be part of the food system.

Um, because if we, what from, based on what we know what and what's emerging

in the microbiology literature.

So the synapses in my brain are, are firing at, at, at, at a

pace that will make me asking questions kind of difficult because there'll be

so many thoughts that I'll be trying to fuse in, but I for sure want to come

back to the colon and the microbiome, uh, if only 'cause I do think it is

a fascinating area of research that I think changes our notion of what an

individual is at, at, at a core level amongst all sorts of system implications.

But, but you said a couple things there I want to stitch together in,

into a, a kind of follow up question.

On the one hand is interesting to see you as an academic acknowledge

kind of the, the privilege that journalists take for granted, right?

That, that journalists often get access to conversations partly

'cause of the institutional power.

You call saying you're the CBC, people are gonna dish, they're gonna spill.

And you're right that academics and researchers often have a

lot more difficulty with that.

And, and if you want, by all means, you could talk about some of the

controversy here at Ontario around researchers in the food system and

access to producers and some of the laws that, that try to restrict, uh,

uh, that, I I, I wanna focus on one specific example before we go further.

'cause I, I think you and I are gonna get into some pretty crazy stuff today.

the locavore you were writing about kind of local food and local consumption of

food production before a lot of people were even conscious of this stuff.

And I kind of feel that that's afforded you a position see this concept evolve, to

see the literacy around local food evolve.

And I'm curious about your perspective there, right?

Ha has it played out the way you initially thought when you were first

a journalist going to something here compared to now where the industry

seems to be using the same language you were using Al, although in different

contexts and in different frames.

I'm curious, as someone who has been there, who's done that knowledge

work, your perspective is on, on the way that local food culture and our

literacy of, of, of the locavore, right?

Where, how that has evolved o over the years that you've been writing at ICU now

teaching, uh, about that kind of stuff.

Well, certainly the story starts like the more, the more one

learns, the more one see the, the sees the story as being very, very long.

So, you know, way, way into the last century, um, you know, local

food, people have been wanting to, you know, protect food systems, um,

from what they saw as, you know, uh, impurities or, you know, make them

more natural for, for generations.

Um, and like we see a lot of this, uh, you know, a hundred years ago, but then in the

1960s, seventies, eighties, nineties, so by the time, um, the early two thousands

come along, the, the, the local food movement that I wrote about, um, in my

book, lo of War, that came out in 2010.

So that was, gosh, 16 years ago.

Um, that really was, I think, a response to that next stage of

industrialization that had happened.

Like, I certainly know I was writing from that.

Like I re um, I remembered a time before there were box boxes of lettuce

from California at the supermarket.

Um, I remembered a time when, you know, you that when you could

only get strawberries in season and asparagus was something that

came from Ontario exclusively.

And so I think people like me were thinking, Hey, something's

happening, something's changing.

Um, there's more pro like I, I remember when, um, president's Choice

invented all those food products and sauces, and everyone was so

excited in my family for sure.

And so we remembered these, these changes felt quick, and then suddenly I think,

uh, there was like a, that movement, oh, let's bring back farmer's markets.

We need to reconnect with local food.

And that certainly was, as you say, um, uh, you could say co-opted, um, bought,

you know, you go into now a major change supermarket and see a farmer's market

stand inside the, the supermarket that's not really a farmer's market stand.

Uh, and many other examples of how, uh, like sustainability, uh, concerns of

the local food movement have become, uh, used to talk about sustainable

beef, uh, and sustainable, you know, production of, of all sorts of foods.

And in some ways it's a really great thing and in some, some situations

and, and they're obviously talking about making industrial food systems

that have so many problems with, uh, unsustainability and inequity fi, figuring

out ways of making them, uh, less con of a contribution to climate change.

Uh, and.

That's like we, we'll put all, I'm gonna just put that, um, uh,

aside and say, so you asked me like, did I know what would happen?

Well, I'll tell you what has been most surprising has been in the

last year where I would never have imagined that obviously, I mean, like

all Canadians, that threats to our national security would provoke such a

widespread, I mean, this is more than 2010 when people, when the farmer's

markets were coming back in some ways, uh, that there's been such a surge.

Like people will just say, like, volunteer to me.

I only, I don't, I don't buy American food anymore.

I wanna buy only Canadian.

I don't actually think that that's true or possible given my experience and

observations at the, at the supermarket.

But, but nevertheless, this, uh, this nationalist fervour, um, has given, uh,

new fuel to, to local food movements.

And what's the most surprising is that now it's when, because we know

our na, we have the new national, uh, food security strategy announced

last week that it's what was, um, that what was more grassroots

before has now become state led.

Doesn't mean that the the goals are the same.

Doesn't mean that the, uh, mechanisms for, uh, localising are the same.

However, the, this idea that, that a country needs to have regional and

local food systems to be, to have food security that I would say has

now become like a national project.

Well, it, we know it has 'cause of the, of the, of the more than $3 billion

that were pledged to that last week.

So massive change.

Would I have, would I have, could I have predicted that I don't, I don't think so.

'cause of the sequence of events.

But it, it does to your point, speak to a rapidly changing

landscape, which does not necessarily mean that the objectives or policy

outcomes we desire will manifest.

But it creates all sorts of opportunities.

And, and I do kind of want to get us to the, the kind of post humanist, uh, uh,

systems and theories, but I think a, a, a natural through line for you has been

critical theory and critical thinking.

And, and I'd love for you to kind of talk about how that has been either a

driver or a, a facilitator, not just of your research, but also your teaching.

what I'm hearing in your language and in your conversation is, is you're situating

yourself within, you know, a, a larger milieu of scholarship, a a larger kind

of, you know, a, a diversity of voices who are, once you go outside of the kind

of dominant narrative of AgriFood in Canada, you start realising that there

are a lot of people raising a lot of really interesting, critical issues.

So I'd, I'd love to hear about kind of the role that you, that critical theory plays

in, in the work in teaching that you do.

Oh, interesting question.

So the way I, right now, I feel like I have these, like two areas, um,

one where I do empirical work on food systems, where I'm, where I, you

know, think about, um, climate change, sustainability, and ju and justice,

um, like how can we have a, like what makes a food system that feeds us all?

Um, and then I'm gonna put like scare quotes around all because then in my, with

my work with critical theory, I like think about, okay, who is the all, um, and,

and we of course mean all people because all people we know in Canada do not have

access because they're food insecure.

Um, in fact, uh, the statistics are alarming for the number of people, you

know, um, around 20 plus percent do are, do are are food insecure in Canada.

So by all we need a food system that ensures that everybody

has access to, to healthy food.

Um, but also the all being from, uh, like how does this food system sustain us all?

We can't sustain ourselves tomorrow if we don't think of the all as being plants

and microbes and, and trees and the soil sphe and the, you know, all ev all life.

Um, and so that just that which is where I'm now working, uh, to try

to bring my, to my empirical and theoretical work together more and

more to be able to think about food systems from, sometimes I call it an

ecological public health perspective.

Sometimes I call it a posthumous perspective, depends on how I

feel today and who I'm talking to.

But like, yeah, trying to think about health, um, not as a condition

that I possess in my body, but as a condition that exists across systems.

And I'm speaking ecological systems, but we can't.

The food system, um, as you and I know very well is a socioecological system.

So it includes technology and it includes politics and policy and, and

social structures and all these other things that, that make it what it is.

The, the complicated, fascinating thing that it is.

Well, and, and the reason I kind of honed in on, on theory is,

and critical theory in particular is, is I'm certainly finding both

as I age, but also as I kind of encounter different cultures, younger

cultures, that theory is often scarce.

That, that the kind of thinking that theory enables is kind of scarce.

I, I think you and I grew up and kind of came of age in cultures

where it was in abundance, where there were lots of people engaging

with theory and playing with theory.

I say this because as a kind of transition to use like the microbiome as an example,

you know, on the one hand I find there are, there is a growing ecological

awareness for people outside of the body.

Like, you know, a hunter.

You can talk about the natural environment, a farmer you can

talk to about the ecological environment around their farm.

I have difficulty having conversations with those same people about the

microbiome that it, it, it is, it applies the same system principles,

kind of requires an abstract thinking, a theoretical apparatus to kind of

understand the concept of the microbiome.

I say that as a setup to do you explain the microbiome to people who are not

in your field or you're happen to be breaking bread with, and they're like,

Hey, what are you passionate about?

You're like, well, let me tell you about your colon.

How, how do you frame it in a way that is accessible but still maintains the

kind of the critical perspectives, the systems theory that you're bringing to it.

I've been, I've been, um, asked by my children not to talk, uh,

not to proselytise anymore about the microbiome, because when I was first

starting to read this science, I, like, literally, it was during the pandemic.

And I, you know, was spending Friday night reading, um, reading scientific

papers, like learning as much as I could.

Like there was, it's like the most incredible, fascinating

thing in the whole world.

Um, and so the way I would, I, if I'm permitted or if my kids aren't around,

then I can tell somebody, um, that, um, that, that, well, I, I could say we're not

human because we live with many different microorganisms in our bodies that do,

that play all sorts of important roles.

Um, often through food.

Uh, our relationship with food such as, you know, synthesising, uh,

meta, metabolic meta metabolites that are like short chain fatty

acids that reduce inflammation to, um, enabling us to be nourished.

Um, uh, to, gosh, you know, there, there's the, the microbiome or mi gut microbiome

can, um, plays a role with the brain.

I don't do anything with the brain.

I have like, there's, there, you know, as a systems researcher, everything

is connected, but you have to, you have to put artificial boundaries

'cause it's absolutely impossible.

So, to, to learn about even practically one area.

So I think about plants and, and microbes, but, um, but yeah, the,

the, there's the gut brain axis.

There's the, I just learned about the other day.

The shoulder has a microbiome.

Our eyes have a microbiomes.

The, the lung has a microbiome.

Like we are just fundamentally microbial.

And as a food systems researcher, I look at, I, I tell them that.

And so what you eat, um, determines in part your, these, this community

that you live with, that plays this really important role for your health.

And so

Does that answer your question?

Absolutely, absolutely.

And, and give, gimme a few examples and, and I mean that both on the

research level in terms of the, the, the types of questions or the types

of, you know, kind of increase now, now that you've been in infected

with this fascinating subject area.

You know, how are you playing with it?

What, what are the kinda research questions that you're,

you're trying to go, but then to, to the point of your kids?

assume this is affecting how you eat and how you think about food yourself,

because that is kind of the nature of theory that it ends up influencing action.

So again, to further unpack this concept of, of the microbiome and how you're

approaching it, give me a, a research example and give me a kind of, you

know, personal adaptation example.

Okay, I have to just write down the three parts of that question.

So theory, um, and, um, eating and research itself.

Okay, I'm gonna go start with the research itself.

So for example, um, one area that I'm working on right now, well, I gave a

presentation recently on, was how was very practical public health focus.

'cause I'm in a school of public health.

And so I was like, even if you eat the, follow the Canada food guide,

'cause people who do ask me, my friends will say, oh, you know, what is it?

And they say, but I don't eat any ultra processed foods.

'cause we know ultra processed foods are generally bad for the microbiome.

And so what I say is, well, even if you follow the can of food guide, there

are all sorts of additives in your food that are damaging either to the

microbes themselves, to your mucosal lining of your, of your colon, which

is where the microbes live, or that, um, that, that synthesise the microbes.

Then take for example, zody, break them down and turn them into something

else, another, um, substance that kills other microbes in your, in your gut.

So, so if you eat many of the foods that are available to us at the supermarket,

you will, even if you're not eating, like something that we call that some

people would call, you know, unhealthy bad food, you can end up like carrageenan

that you'll find in, in half and half.

Uh, so you're, let's say that you're, you're, let's just talk about

breakfast Carin in your half and half goes in the coffee, uh, carrageenan,

no, you don't wanna eat that.

Um, you have carboxyl, methylcellulose in the muffin.

Uh, you, let's say you're going gluten free 'cause you think

that's gonna be better for you.

Well, it's gonna be made with carboxyl Methylcellulose probably that's

really not good for you either.

Um, and then, um, gosh, what else could you have?

Oh, and then maybe you have a bagel with some cream cheese or cottage cheese.

Let's put cottage cheese on the side that's gonna be full of emulsifiers

and, um, and other ingredients, preservatives that are also gonna

do a number on your gut microbiome.

So, so even when you're following the this, uh, can of food guide, you're

eating things that are damaging to your, to you and your communities of microbes.

And so how does this affect my, um, eating fundamentally?

Uh, because, uh, in terms of, uh, what we eat, we like.

It's been, there's been like radical changes and not just, luckily I'm not, I,

my whole family from my, like my parents to my, my sister's family, everybody eats

what we call in our family, the gut diet.

Um, and so we eat a lot of fibre because that's, that's in like fruits

and vegetables and beans and nuts and all these things because the microbes

break those, break those down, the, the fibres down and produce all sorts of

healthy metabolites for us with that.

So it has changed our eating for better or for for better, obviously sometimes.

Um, the, the younger folks would say for worse because they miss,

um, they, they, they know it's not like they don't believe it or know.

Like they, they are old enough.

They understand, but they miss, they miss a time when they didn't have to

know this, the burden of truth, which is that the food system produces all this

stuff that they shouldn't be eating.

And then in terms of theory, actually, because I've been reading Posthuman

theory, I was in a workshop yesterday and be, and they were talking about

how, um, you need to, to re your, you read theory and how you're constantly,

you need to be constantly reading.

And your understanding was like the way that the, the presenter

was describing it was like your understanding was constantly evolving.

And I really love that because it really ca it is true, your one's

understanding constantly evolves.

And so I've been reading Posthumus theory since, um, probably around

2015 when I was 2016, when I was in my first year of my PhD, um,

preparing for my comprehensive exam.

Um, and.

I, it's now like fused into the, to the way I think and even talk.

So, um, in Posthumanism we see other, other creatures than other

than humans, as, as be as doing things as participating and social

life and cultural life and politics.

And so I, I can't help but, but, but see the world animated by these things

that like, I can see for, you know, if I make pickles, someone says, I do

a lot of fermentation 'cause ferment.

It's good to eat fermented foods.

So I'll be like, someone will say, oh, your pickles are so good.

You, you made them.

No, I didn't make them.

The microbes made them and I'm not being cute.

Like, I, like, that's like literally theory, as you said, it really

shaped the way you see the world.

Or when I see the, uh, the government making the decision to increase the

highway, um, uh, increase highways, uh, across, um, agricultural lands in Toronto.

Like, I I, it is just so clear that, that this is damaging to

health and human health, right?

Like it's just the, the once you take the human out of the centre and you

decenter the human as they say, like it's, it is a different world that you see.

Now I really need to pause for a second and, and do this really important

thing, which is to acknowledge that this is not a new perspective,

like in Euro Western thought.

This idea that, um, that humans are not the centre of the universe,

um, might be something that is, feels new, but it is by no means.

And it like indigenous peoples here on Turtle Island in Abala, which

is the, um, an, uh, a name for South America, the Amer, the other

mari parts of the Americas, um, indigenous, uh, an indigenous name.

And then, uh, people's in on all continents, um, have

been thinking this way.

So it's, it's really important for people like me, um, to not to like, to

what we call Decolonize posthumanism and make sure that you really situate

the work that's done, um, by people like me in the context, um, and

in dialogue even with, um, other ways of knowing other philosophies

that are not Euro Western centric.

And this has done a lot, and particularly like great work out of Australia, they,

there's some like really interesting scholarship there where, um, where

settler scholars are working with indigenous, uh, communities and indigenous

scholars to really, to really, um, do amazing research and to that, that,

that animates our understanding of, of our, of relationships in the world.

Well, and you're correct in saying that it's not new, but I

think it is important in acknowledging that it's currently marginalised.

And, and I say this because it, it, it, my engagement with the sector is

discombobulating to me, for lack of a better phrase, because I am privy

to the kind of thinking and work that you do that Charles Lko does,

that a lot of the people who I've been around for decades have done.

And I don't see it acknowledged, I don't see it kind of part of the narrative

landscape that the sector addresses.

And to me, that's dysfunctional.

That's a mistake that there's a need to make sure, even for the

purposes of science, if not for the purposes of a better, more inclusive

food system, to make sure that all those voices and perspectives

are part of the policy process.

Our part of the debate process, and here's where I'll say, as an aside,

feel encouraged to go as radical and provocative as incendiary as possible

in the time that we have left.

But let me ask you a very pointed question and, and I do

wanna come back to the colon.

By the way, a lot of the guests that I've had on the show, a lot of the

voices, the leadership of the AgriFood sector demonize regulation, right?

To them regulation is one of the spectres that haunt their desire

for prosperity, for innovation, for being a better industry, a

better sector, a better society.

And I'm curious to hear your thoughts partly because on the one hand, I

assume you don't want to see them adding ingredients, like without any

testing, without any approval, without any knowledge into our food system.

But on the other hand, I suspect that you are suspicious of state power

and the way in which regulation can normalise things that may not be good.

I, I'm rambling.

I don't know where I'm going with this question other than to say you,

you clearly have a really sharp, well-informed, well-researched

critical perspective on the sector.

What role do you think regulation can play either in mitigating the

harms that you're addressing or in facilitating the kind of more inclusive

justice, sustainable food system that advocating for and working towards?

Wow.

What a great way of, of, um.

Just painting that problem as in, you know, like we have, we need regulation

to be, to, that's what society provides us with right rules to keep

that we help each other, to keep us each other safe and, and, and well,

um, and, but then yet whose power, um, is reproduced through regulation.

Um, so when it comes to people saying they don't like regulation, I like, I I,

I would wonder if perhaps is that they don't like some regulations because,

because probably people wanna be able to, you know, turn on the tap and drink

water that's not going to give them dysentery or be have, uh, PFAS chemicals

in it, that's, that's gonna destroy your, your, your health or, um, breathe air

that gives you lung cancer or, um, or your food, you know, like knowing that

you can go to the store and buy food and that it's probably because of the,

the, uh, the food safety certification, it's very less likely to have like

e coli on your spinach, for example.

Not saying that that doesn't happen, we know it does, but Right.

That's, but that's exactly why there are these incredible complex systems

and like, frankly, I know I, I, I talk about, um, alternative food systems, but

when the more I study the, the mainstream industrial production that's like across

the globe that can bring spinach from, you know, thousands of kilometres away

and, and it's like clean and safe to eat and I can eat it, it's like true.

And it's fresh as in, it's not rotted and I can, I can eat This is truly

awe inspiring and, and incredible.

So, and that's because of regulation, right?

Like, it's like truly reg, like, you know, all the, how

it gets shipped, is it bonded?

Is it, does it, you know, what kind of permits does it have to travel through

this country to get to that country?

So, so I think like, people who say they don't like regulation, probably it's

because so much of the regulation that makes our lives as comfortable as they

are right now are, are invisible to us.

Like, that's part of us not, um, I, like I always say like the, the

government, the city government in particular, municipalities should

hire like a PR firm to tell people like, what is the, what is all this

policy and government actually do?

Like, do like your garbage gets taken away, you have clean water,

your toilet flushes, ev you know, generally like, wow, what a

privilege to live in much of Canada.

I recognise not everybody shares the same experiences across this country.

Um, so, so that's, you know, re we need regulation and we really need regulation.

As you said about ingredients in food that's not there.

So that's a really great example of like whose interests are ref, are, are

reproduced in the regulations around food.

Like the, um, for example, you could take two, um, two

examples of, uh, whipping cream.

I looked at this the other day and, and one was had, um, had ingredients that

I don't wanna put in my body in it.

Um, and the other had, uh, none of that.

And it was whipping cream, and it was the, the, the one that had none of it.

It's not more expensive.

In fact, it was like, I think it was even a little bit less expensive.

And furthermore, it was more, it was like 500 mils versus 475 mils.

Okay, so why is that, um, why is that additive?

I, I believe it was carrageenan in the, in one of the brands of whipping cream.

Well, that's because the, the, the corporation wants to, is, wants

to put it in because it helps them to maximise their profits.

Um, and it's not a health question.

It's not a, it's not a quality question.

I can, I can tell you that anybody who likes high quality, delicious stuff

is probably gonna be able to taste the difference between those two creams.

Um, and the one without the carrageenan is, is, uh, gonna taste better.

So the only, the, the, the one reason to put it in there is, is profit.

And that could have to do with mouthfeel.

It could also have, like, do people like the way it, it holds together,

um, over the time on the shelf.

But usually it's about ex like making sure we can sell something,

uh, with an extended shelf time.

And again, that comes back to profit.

So, so who's, who's interests are reflected in, in standards often

have to do with, um, moneymaking as opposed to what's best for, for health.

And I don't just mean human health.

I mean, we need to be thinking again, as we, as I've been saying across systems,

but ecological health because, because that food safety and, and often comes

up against, um, ecological health.

Like if you think of food, throwing out things or, um, or, you know, putting

plastic gloves on to make a, to make a, a sandwich, um, at a sandwich store,

uh, someone's putting on plastic gloves.

That's for food safety reasons.

Um, so now, now you're putting what a, an appearance of food safety versus

ecological health, which, uh, is also your health as a human being.

Uh, because those gloves are going in the garbage and they've been made

with, um, all sorts of resources are embedded in the making of them.

And also, I had a, a pH I have a PhD student who has a fascinating

PhD ex looking at gloves.

And I will just say that they are not the sterile gloves that, that

we think they, that they are.

And so that is, uh, we should stay tuned for this, uh, this, this wonderful, uh,

research because, um, often things, this is just, that's just yet another example

of things that you assume to be true.

When you actually look at, uh, look at them, they're,

they're not, they're not true.

Now I'm taking a little side of.

it, it goes back to my other point that if, if we, the sector.

Actually, I just, can I just jump one thing?

Like that's the, that I'm gonna finish.

Sorry.

I just, that like, that's the brilliance of critical theory because

theory allows us to learn how what we know about the world and how we make

sense of the world is not natural.

It's, it's, it's produced by the, the way we were raised by, by how

we came to learn about the world, about by our culture, by our values.

All these things that make us who, who we are, help us to interpret the world

and understand and make sense of things.

So when we have critical theory, when we, when we read, um, when we read critical

theory and philosophy, we're like, we, we learn about how like different, different

things cause stigma and inequities and different people, um, have their power

is expressed in this way or that way.

And so I was, um, I, it would be wonderful if we all, I know we're,

we're moving towards a time where, you know, is anyone gonna read anymore?

If you can just put something into a AI reader and get the,

the bullet notes from it.

However, we're at a time where we need to be reading more.

We need to be engaging with these like centuries of ideas across

civilizations, um, to, to grapple with this very complex and troubling

time that we're living in right now.

Well, and I think that's the argument as to why I think the

sector needs to acknowledge and cease the marginalisation of critical voices.

Because to have dissenting voices, to have different voices, to have, to your point,

students who are going off in random directions that no one else would've

thought about, benefits all of us, even if you don't agree with the conclusions.

So let, let me throw another kinda advanced, difficult question at you.

'cause you clearly have, uh, uh, imbued the principles of public health into a

lot of your research, a lot of the way in which you approach, uh, some of the

challenges, some of the problems, some of the concepts that, that interest you.

I I think a lot of people can acknowledge that public health took quite a beating,

uh, at the hands of the conspiracists and the fascists, uh, uh, o over

the course of the last six years.

And at the same time, public health is ever more important.

Uh, we're watching an Ebola outbreak in the Congo, uh, uh, uh, become, uh,

incredibly dangerous and, and impactful.

How do you approach public health in a post institutional setting?

And I say this in the sense that I don't want to hear your thoughts

on what the Toronto or Ontario or Canada Public Health should, like.

What should a public health revolutionary be thinking about in the poly crisis

that we find ourselves in ourselves?

And I say this because the, the tragedy I was being reminded of when you were just

giving your last example was how, on the one hand, in, in the early days of the,

the, the COVID outbreak, people became obsessed with sterilising surfaces as if

sterilising surfaces would help them, but then they didn't bother wearing masks.

Once we started to understand that the virus was airborne and

yet sterilising surfaces, that's not so great for our biome.

Like again, there's so much nuance, so much complication to the way in

which this messaging has to play out.

Part of your brilliance is you do have a media background,

so you learn storytelling at a very early point in your career.

But how you conceive of public health in the conspiracy era, right?

How, how do you encourage your students or critically minded folks to play

public health the way others play public education when it comes to it?

At least you got your family eating fibre.

Uh, but, but how do we carry that forward in, in this social movement sort of sense?

Oh my gosh.

It's like front row seat, um, to, uh, to, um, the, the, the information wars, right?

Public health, food health.

Like we, you know, the, um.

It's really exciting place to research and, and, and who and truth, right?

This like, in this post-truth world, what is true?

And I think that what part of the problem is that science, positivist

science, so we call positive science, the kind of science that emerged

in the, the Euro western world.

Um, and from starting, you know, back in the enlightenment that has like

a specific way of doing science or other sciences out there, but this

particular science that says, you know, there's one truth, um, we can, we can

find it if we measure and study it.

And, um, and once we do this investigation, we can figure out what

we can figure out what is the truth?

And our way, this scientific way is the, is the, the legitimate

way of producing knowledge.

And there, there's lots of people in the Western Academy and beyond that

have challenged this, including, of course, other ways of knowing that

challenge this, um, this, uh, these, the, this way of doing science that

claimed like we have the truth.

This is the truth, have been challenged by many, many, many, many, many scholars.

Um, um, so I'm just repeating what they're saying here, but this to me is the problem

now is that with this, this claim on the truth is not actually true, right?

Like there isn't there.

It's more complicated than there just being something, one thing that we

can measure, like the COVID pandemic is a perfect example, as you said.

You know, like sometimes you don't know and sometimes many things are

true, um, and that are complicated and really hard to understand.

Um, and I don't mean hard for the public to understand, I mean hard for the people

who are doing the research to understand.

Um, and so the, the idea that there's only one right answer, um, I think

has an, has contributed to this like massive alienation from, from science

and public health and that part of the solution, like, I mean, this is just

such a massive problem that so that so many people are thinking about.

But part of the solution, I think in, in my little way, has to do

with recognising, um, that there are different ways of producing knowledge

beyond this one particular way.

Now that does not mean that, um, I am saying that, that like, that I'm

anti-vaccine for a, for example, like there's certain things that

are factually inaccurate, right?

Like a vaccine does not cause, uh, that the MMR vaccine does

not cause autism full stop.

That's not, this is not about, um, this is not about, uh, valuing,

you know, different perspectives.

No, there's like, some things are true, some things are false.

Um, but, but, um, what this, what I think is important to make it through this

complicated, um, post-truth world is.

Is figuring out a way for, to validate different ways of coming,

to understand what is what is true.

And uh, and this is a

So for me that would be like, mm-hmm.

Well, and and let me take a brief tangent 'cause I am

conscious that we're almost outta time.

How do we get journalists to adopt what you just said?

And I say this 'cause I know a lot of people who have worked in journalism who

have come to the conclusion you have, but I still regularly encount people who

are in power in the media and cultural industries who still arrogantly, assert

the opposite of what you just described.

I assume you encounter these people as well.

How do you handle that conflict?

You know what?

I live in a, sometimes a bit of a bubble at the university, right?

So I'm not dealing with people too much who I have.

I I, I actually like when I do, 'cause I research with people, I'm as, I'm a social

scientist and I do research on teams with people who are, um, natural scientists

and do biomedical research also.

And so I research with people who have a different, um, perspective

who wouldn't share my same critique of this idea that there's, there

is a truth that can be measured.

Like I work with people like that all the time.

So, so, um, um, and usually that involves like, not asserting, um, my

perspective on them, interestingly.

But that's because this is a marginal also like within the academy, the,

the, this pers perspective in science, um, is not, is not as dominant,

um, as the, as this idea that, as a way like that that mainstream

medical research is, is, is done.

Um, so it's complicated.

It's actually, it's an interesting, it's a really interesting, uh, question.

Like how do you, how do you work with people really?

Like how do you work with people who have a different, um, fundamental

world views is really the question that we need to figure out, right?

As we become more, um, divided as we are right now.

Well,

I'm sorry I don't have a good answer to that question.

No, that was a great answer.

And I, I, we, we are just about out of time, so this is where I say I have

to have you back on the podcast and let us address that exact question.

Uh, because collaboration is a very big buzzword in the AgriFood sector,

and I think there's an opportunity to kind of call people's bluff to

call the sector's bluff vis-a-vis the argument that I've been making today.

Uh, because I'm conscious that we literally only have a few minutes left.

I want to get to the last two questions that I try to ask every

guest and then ask you to answer them as, as quickly or succinctly as you

can with the knowledge that if you desire, you'll have the opportunity

to revisit this again in the future.

But are there any like policies, this, the question, usually the way I frame

it to people is I've just seized, uh, the Prime Minister's office.

I, I now have executive and legislative power.

Uh, what is the policy that you think would have the biggest impact in terms

of advancing some of the issues we've discussed today or, or the ones that are

most relevant to the AgriFood sector?

Well.

Of my research that I haven't spoken about today has been on produce supply

chains and, and, um, specifically the Ontario Food Terminal, which is an example

of public food system infrastructure.

And so I think that the public is what we need to take with us,

um, now, uh, from, from different examples of food system models.

I think right now what we need are is public infrastructure at a time of

great corporate consolidation where you have, you know, increasingly large, uh,

companies that control more and more of different, all sorts of aspects of the

food system that we need to ensure that there's more, um, that, that the, that

there's more public good, um, possible.

And through that, I do believe that public food system infrastructure can do that.

So the Ontario Food Terminal is an example of that because it enables

a diversity of farmers and other businesses, retailers, a small micro and,

and mid-scale and even quite large to participate in the Canadian food economy.

And that, and our research has shown, it provides all sorts of goods such

as, um, you know, uh, um, enables, uh, more, you know, more regional farmers

to part, to, to have an outlet for their food, um, with more customers.

Uh, when we followed the food through the food terminal, we found

that in, in, um, neighbourhoods, they, people were buying actually

food that costs less from a certain sector of the, of the retail world.

Uh, like these micro sellers, it was actually costing less and it

was more culturally significant.

And I, when I was there, I witnessed other values of the food.

Like, we often think about price, which is super important, but there also other

values too, like, like, is the food that I'm purchasing, is it what I want to eat?

And, and other things too, like community.

Like for example, um, I I, one day I was doing an observation, um, you know, just

doing field work and at a, at a micro cellar in a social, um, housing complex.

And I was, I was, was gonna go buy some vegetables and then I

thought, oh, I made the offhand comment, oh, I can't buy today.

I forgot my wallet.

And a woman I didn't know turned to me and said, would you like

me to borrow, lend you money?

Like has, that's never happened to me at a major chain supermarket before.

Um, and so, you know, that just, I mean that's just one tiny anecdote,

but it speaks to what we saw, which was like another role that food and food

systems plays, which is supporting, supporting community and other values.

And that's where the public food system infrastructure comes in.

Because it could be a food terminal, it could be a public market.

The city of Toronto has passed, um, a policy to get more public

markets, one for every neighbourhood.

This is again, a way to have this, um, inclusion.

Um, in our food system.

And so that's why something, uh, you know, public if you, if, if you were, um,

making policy, that's what I'd ask for.

Uh, interestingly, this national food security strategy has

funded, um, uh, it seems two new food terminals and food hubs.

So we'll see what, um, how public these, these turn out to be.

Right on.

And then the last question really is the shout outs.

This is, you know, not meant to be like the Academy Awards where you

list a whole bunch of names, but it, it's like the, what is the future?

It's like the gut response.

Who are the people you think we should be paying attention to that, you know,

maybe inspire you, peak your curiosity, or you just want to say, Hey, yeah,

you should check these folks out.

Well, if I come back, I'm gonna come back with a list, a reading

list of wonderful things to read.

I can never remember off the top of my head, but there's so many people's books

that I've read and articles that are, that I've learned from and that I'm, that

I've just metabolised and reformulated, um, into what I've said today.

So that, that list is very long.

But, but in terms of as a, being a researcher, journalist versus now

an academic, I'll tell you, the research assistants I work with

have enabled me to do this research.

Like, and it's, we do this research together and they're students and

they work for me for a little bit, and then they graduate and they move on.

And I, and, and so they are the people that I would wanna recognise

the most because, um, we, that we had like five South Asian languages

spoken on our projects so far.

And, um, and, you know, they, they're coming up with solutions and

problems and questions that, that, and I learn from them all the time.

And I know that sounds corny and can, but it's true.

Like, working as in a team is like really fun and really exciting.

And that's, that's different than, than having written a book all by myself.

This is like a really a group effort.

Well, and shout out the labour that, that makes these things

possible, the way that the more people in the kitchen o often the greater meal.

I know you gotta go.

So thank you very much, Sarah.

This has been absolutely fantastic.

And to your point, we really only scratch the surface, so we,

we have to do this again soon.

In fact, I'm thinking about organising a panel, uh, of, uh,

radical food researchers, uh, with your friend Charles and some others.

So maybe that'll be the next opportunity to do so.

Thanks again.

Thanks, Jesse.

That was really fun.

The good news is we did actually hold that food studies panel.

Uh, it was fantastic.

Expect it as an episode coming up in the weeks to come.

The bad news is Sarah wasn't able to make that panel, uh, which is unfortunate

'cause Sarah's perspective is fantastic.

I mean, on the one hand, you can judge a society based on how

it treats its most vulnerable.

On the other hand, you can judge an individual by what they choose to do

on a Friday night because the thing about Friday night is it's often when

we are most free or mostly religiously devout, depending on how you swing.

But to choose to study the microbiome, to spend your Friday nights reading

research about the bacteria that sustains us, that's exactly the

kind of curious individual that belongs in the future herd.

And Sarah's wide ranging critical perspective is again, exactly the kind

of knowledge and most importantly talent that the AgriFood sector requires.

So one of the reasons a moving forward, you're gonna hear from people like

her, but the other takeaway from the episode today was the role of theory.

I mean, not just critical theory.

Obviously those of us who are critical, like critical theory, but even if

criticism's not your thing, you still rely upon theory, a theory of farming, a theory

of markets, a theory of communication, a theory of soil, a theory of livestock,

a theory of which podcast to listen to.

Theory frames so much of our world, so much of our lives.

I'll give a shout out here to the podcast, why theory, WHY.

It's quite an interesting exercise, A little indulgent at

times, but a good literacy in terms of the rule of philosophy.

And that's also something I think that the future herd can contribute

to the larger AgriFood sector, not just the knowledge that we're

generating and distributing, not just the expertise that we're recognising

nor the talent that we're assembling.

No, it's also the theory, the literacy of theory and understanding

that theory governs everything.

So we should all be theorists.

We should all be thinking and criticising and understanding our systems in new ways.

That's a kind of literacy I think, that we can excel at here at the future herd and

facilitate amongst the sector as a whole.

Thanks again to Sarah Elton.

I do expect you'll be hearing more from her here on the

Future Herd, uh, uh, podcast.

And while we did take a bit of a break, uh, due to heat and a little bit of

holidays, we've got a bunch of episodes, uh, in the archive ready to drop.

Uh, so expect some real bangers, some really phenomenal stuff

in the days and weeks to come.

Okay, we'll talk to you soon.

Take care.