news from the world of big ag

Because of garden season and marathon training, there hasn't been too much on the blog in the last few months about agriculture or what's going on in the world of food. But much has happened recently that's worth mentioning.

Perdue removes antibiotics from chicken hatcheries
Perhaps the most positive Big Ag/Big Food news in awhile, Perdue Foods announced this month that they have removed antibiotics from their chicken hatcheries.

They haven't used antibiotics as a growth promoter since 2007, but this move now makes it so that 95% of their animals will not receive antibiotics in their lifetimes. The ones that do receive them to treat illness, etc. This move is important, because it addresses a large public health problem - the growing threat of antibiotic resistance. While Big Ag has a long way to go until they can manage humane animal husbandry, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. I applaud any move toward more sustainable, healthy agricultural practices.

Tyson and Hillshire merge

Tyson Foods, the largest meat producer in the U.S., has won anti-trust clearance from the Justice Department to purchase Hillshire (makers of Jimmy Dean sausage, Hillshire Farms and Ball Park hot dogs) for $7.7 billion. Yes, Tyson had to divest of its small hog division, making it an independent company until a buyer comes along, in order for the merger to gain approval. It boggles my mind that the Justice Department just opens the gates wide for these kind of mergers, with no concern whatsoever for independent meat producers, which are now few and far between.

This merger now makes a mega company even bigger, which means even less chance that the company will consider more humane practices in raising their animals. (Though Tyson is notorious for subcontracting the actual raising of the animals and then purchasing them through the farmers. It's just that they don't do anything to make it viable for those farmers to raise the animals humanely if they want to make a living at all.)

Civil Eats says it best in this short piece. More reason for me to continue avoiding meat of unknown origin as much as possible and to be more careful about it when I'm out.

General Mills buys Annie's

Ever eat Annie's cheddar bunnies or mac and cheese? Well, General Mills just did, eating up Annie's for $820 million. While not nearly as big as the Tyson/Hillshire merger, this deal represents Big Food's insatiable appetite for organic and natural foods. Many independent companies over the years have been bought out by Big Food - General Mills already owns Kashi and Muir Glen. What it means for the quality of the products sold under that name or its sourcing of ingredients remains to be seen, but it's still hard to not hum "Another One Bites the Dust" under my breath.

***

On a different note, episodes of a new series on PBS called Food Forward are available to stream. The pilot episode won a James Beard award, and I'm going to be watching them over the next few weeks and hopefully writing about them. Check it out!

the real threat of antibiotic resistance

It's been awhile since I wrote about the kinds of food issues that get me hot under the collar, for lack of a better phrase. My time for reading up on current issues is severely limited in the summer, for a lot of reasons, but primarily the amount of time spent dealing with vegetables and also running like it's a part time job in marathon training.

But at the end of July, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned two rulings in cases which had directed the FDA to stop the routine use of certain antibiotics in healthy animals unless drug manufacturers proved the safety of such use. (Source, Majority Opinion, Dissenting Opinion)  

This means that even though the FDA admits that the use of antibiotics in healthy animals to promote growth and weight gain contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans, they can't do anything to stop producers and commercial livestock companies from using subtherapeutic drugs for healthy animals. They issue voluntary guidelines, which are about as effective as me calling Cargill's customer service department and asking them to stop using antibiotics in healthy animals.

Here's the facts.  

• 2 million people in the U.S. alone are infected by antibiotic resistant bacteria each year
• 23,000 people in the U.S. DIE from these infections each year, in addition to the many who die from illnesses complicated by antibiotic resistant infections
• Leading health organizations from across the nation and the world - leading organizations and not just wacky health food hippies - have spoken out against the use of antibiotics in livestock. To name a few - the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Medical Association, American Society for Microbiology, American Academy of Pediatrics. 
• The Director General of the WHO: “Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill. A post-antibiotic era means, in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it. The problem arises when drugs used for food production are medically important for human health, as evidence shows that pathogens that have developed resistance to drugs in animals can be transmitted to humans.”

This isn't fringe science. There's no real debate in the scientific community that this is a major public health problem. We are running out of antibiotics that are effective in treating many serious infections, and it will change the face of modern medicine if we can no longer stop common infections.   

But our own government organizations - the ones that are tasked with protecting the health of Americans - won't stand up to industry and force them to reduce and eventually eliminate their reliance on subtherapeutic antibiotics. None of us want to revisit the world of our ancestors, where a scratch could easily kill you.

So what do you do? Beyond making public comments when they are open and supporting legislation that would push for stricter regulations?

Stop eating meat that comes from animals raised with antibiotics. 

I realize that I'm blessed to be able to buy meat from local farmers who do not use subtherapeutic antibiotics in their feed. But I can tell you right now that if tomorrow, my sources were no longer there, I'd give up meat altogether.

More and more suppliers are producing meat that's antibiotic free, and prices are coming down as demand begins to grow. If you do one thing to change your diet to support health as well as a better food supply - do this. Save antibiotics for when you have a real infection - and not just when you're having dinner.    


 

4 reasons why I am not a food alarmist

This is a bit of a soap box post. Fair warning.

I've talked before about online petitions and their effectiveness, as well as the hype over the "yoga mat bread" debacle. These things are all tied to what I call food alarmism. And it drives me nuts.

To me, food alarmism is taking a concept related to food (particularly health food) and then blowing it way out of proportion and abandoning all reason, just to advance your agenda or philosophical position (and in some cases, a business interest). It's often done in the name of advocacy - framed as public health crusaders trying to save the American people from themselves. 

But there are a few reasons why I will never subscribe to this type of advocacy and actually feel it's detrimental to the broader food movement. (Put another way, it makes people who care about what we eat look like psychos.)

#1 - "Chemicals" are not always the enemy. You could make water sound like a scary additive if you called it dihydrogen monoxide. Just because a substance has a chemical-sounding name doesn't make it dangerous. Everything we eat is made up of chemicals - even our bodies are made up of chemicals. (Trust me, having a thyroid disorder mine are often out of whack.) 

I used to be on the anti-chemical bandwagon pretty hard for awhile, but the more I read, the more I realize there are a lot of harmless chemicals out there and a few that actually ARE health hazards. So you've got to find out what a 'chemical' actually is, how it's used, what research is out there about its safety, etc. before you decide it's poison. That isn't to say we shouldn't reduce our exposure to chemicals that have been linked with health hazards. But be smart about it.

#2 - Junk food is junk food. The idea of trying to get a company that makes fatty, salty junk food to take an ingredient out of its fatty, salty junk food to make that fatty, salty junk food "healthier"? That's crazy. Here's a simple solution. EAT LESS JUNK. And don't expect companies that sell junk food to make that junk food healthier. When you do, all you get is health-washed food that looks healthy but actually isn't. (Raise your hand if you've ever eaten Sun Chips in your life because you thought they were "healthier" than Doritos? Yeah. My hand is up too.)

#3 - Hype is hype - whether it comes from Monsanto or a food blogger. Many people are in the business of getting people whooped up about very small issues. This is a good thing for companies and individuals who want people to be distracted from the larger picture (public health, access to healthy, whole foods for all people, the fight against hunger for starters) by starting crusades on the small stuff. What if all the energy spent on getting Budweiser to tell us what's in their beer was spent trying to get access to fresh produce for hungry people? Which brings me to my next point.

#4 - There are bigger fish to fry. The way I see it, there are really huge issues that we need to address as a nation that relate to our food supply. Namely, making sure everyone gets enough. And that they get enough actual, healthy food. Those of us who consider ourselves foodies (with all the good and bad that term carries) need to understand that the fact that we can even make the food choices we do is a privilege that not all of our fellow citizens have. 

Besides the availability of food in general, we have a really big and rapidly growing problem with antibiotic resistance. And it's not just food bloggers or animal rights activists who think that. The Centers for Disease Control has made it clear that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in livestock has contributed greatly to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Even the FDA acknowledges that it's a problem (and they basically don't acknowledge anything as a problem). So if we want to get behind something that can really make a difference in public health (not to mention animal welfare, but that's another story), we should rally behind removing non-therapeutic antibiotics from our livestock. Rally behind the piles of scientific evidence that we are one major antibiotic resistant epidemic away from a true public health nightmare. 

So while Vani Hari (a.k.a. Food Babe, She of Many Petitions) rallies her army of disciples to expose the chemicals in a Budweiser, I'll choose to lend my voice to issues that might actually end up helping people - and are backed up by science, reason and common sense.         

movie review: the garden

While I was perusing the documentaries on Netflix recently, I found a short one about the attempt to save an urban garden. It wasn't spectacular as far as documentaries go, but the events it concerned made me want to find out more. In doing a little research, I realized a longer documentary was done on the events - a film that was nominated in 2009 for an Academy Award for best documentary. So I ordered it from our library and checked it out.

The Garden is the story of an urban garden/farm that occupied 14 acres smack in the middle of South Central Los Angeles, an area that had been ravaged after the Rodney King riots in 1992. The farm had 350 plots, which provided food for families, most of which were low income. It was like an oasis of earth and growth surrounded by concrete and urban decay.

The documentary goes into the history and timeline in more depth, but basically the city of Los Angeles decided to sell the land that the farm occupied in a back room deal for drastically less than fair market value to the owner who had lost the land to eminent domain laws 15 years before. The farmers had been on the land because the city let them - they had no formal agreement. The owner decided he didn't want the farm on the land and tried to have them evicted.

A legal fight ensued. I won't tell you exactly what happened because the documentary tells it powerfully, but it wasn't good. It was another tale of the rich and powerful using the government like puppets to advance their own desires, regardless of the needs of the community. 

It seems to me that governments should be doing anything they can to support groups who want to reclaim urban spaces that have been left to decay, particularly those that can be turned into gardens that feed people. I see a lot of rhetoric about low income families needing to "help themselves" - and this is a classic case of people who try to do just that and get thwarted by the roadblocks of power and money. 

The Garden left me wondering how willing I'd be to chain myself to a fence and be arrested if someone was trying to bulldoze the way I provided for my family. How much would I fight? Do we listen to those who do, or do we assume they are just disturbing the peace? This is a great documentary, especially for people who are interested in issues of economic justice and community activism, as well as urban agriculture. Definitely worth a watch, even if it leaves you unsettled (which is kind of the point anyway, right?).

Federal "DARK Act" introduced in Congress: why you need to care

This week, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo (Republican from Kansas) introduced legislation called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act." I don't think I've ever heard of a bill so mislabeled in my life, as what this bill would do is ensure that we never achieve safe and accurate food labeling.

Opponents have dubbed this the DARK (Deny Americans the Right-to-Know) Act, and the hyperbole actually seems to fit here. The bill aims to override state efforts to label GMO foods, as several states have taken up that charge and introduced labeling legislation. Rep. Pompeo's bill would prohibit any mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods.

He claims that the "patchwork" of state GMO laws creates no standard and creates unnecessary fear on the part of consumers. And I agree with him on the first point - we do need a federal standard. But we need one based on science, which at the current moment means that we don't know the long-term effects of GMO crops on health and the environment. So we need to be aware of where they are and how much we are consuming. If products aren't labeled, the long-term effects can't be assessed. Labels are like the informed consent portion of being part of a national experiment. People have a right to be afraid when we aren't informed. We need to know.

To me, this bill is evidence that the bioengineering companies know that consumer confidence is flagging and that their lack of transparency is an issue. So instead of changing their business practices or allowing the American people to decide what they want, they will pour their money into Congressional pockets to take the decision out of our hands and into the federal government.

In the absence of any federal transparency legislation, state legislation is important. State legislation is where the voice of the American people gets to be heard more than lobbyist dollars and Big Ag. Yes, on the state level we also contend with lobbying and misinformation, but the vote comes to the people who are affected by it, instead of members of Congress who can be and are often easily swayed by corporate money.

This bill really matters. Enough that I'm contacting my legislators, and I encourage you to do the same. Even if you have no issue with GMO foods being unlabeled, the fact that the government is trying to preempt your right to have that distinct voice be heard in a state-level vote is troubling. And right now it's biotech corn that's at the center of this debate. But if this legislation passes, what's next? Biotech fish? That's on the horizon. Maybe Farmed & Dangerous wasn't so far off with its 8-winged chicken.

So I'm sending the letter below to my federal legislators - and even some that are in my region, but not my specific area. It's a modification of a letter that Just Label It, a national GMO labeling advocacy organization, put together. Feel free to use it and tweak or personalize it to let your legislators know that you want transparency and choice in our food supply.

I am urging you to not co-sponsor the new legislation introduced by Rep. Pompeo (R-Kan) that would deny consumers a right to know about genetically engineered or biotech foods and allow companies to voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) foods. Until independent, third-party science can truly verify the long-term health and environmental effects of GE foods, the American public deserves transparency. If bioengineering companies are to be allowed to expose the public to GE foods, which can pose risks on many levels, we have the right to informed consent.

Rep. Pompeo’s bill would pre-empt states from taking any legislative efforts towards the labeling of GE foods and allow GE ingredients in products labeled as  “natural.”  It would also prevent the FDA from requiring GE labeling in the future. As one of the 93% of Americans who support GE labeling, I strongly oppose this legislation, and urge you to not sign on as a co-sponsor.

I am asking that instead you support the GE Food-Right-to-Know Act (S.809/H.R. 1699) sponsored by Sen. Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) that would require food manufacturers to clearly label any product that has been genetically engineered or contains GE ingredients. Studies have shown that the majority of Americans regardless of race, religion, class, or political party support GE labeling, a right that people in 64 nations around the world already have. Lack of labeling also complicates our exports, as more and more nations are refusing to import GMO foods. Russia is just the latest.

Please endorse federal labeling of GE foods, and vote against any legislation that would bar the Food and Drug Administration, or the states, from mandating labeling of GE food. Do not support legislation that makes the American people, your constituents, the lab rats of corporate biotech.

Sincerely,

If you don't know who your representatives are, you can find out here. Same with senators, here. I'm contacting my senators too, in case this bill makes it to them.

We can't expect legislators to know what we want them to do for us if we don't tell them. Watching and reading the news and getting outraged isn't going to do anything if you don't push where it matters. Then we can hold our elected representatives accountable.

thoughts on chipotle's 'farmed & dangerous'

Chipotle has been on the forefront of national restaurant chains in the movement toward more sustainable and humane agriculture practices. Their first foray into viral marketing was "Back to the Start," a video with Willie Nelson singing that emphasizes the importance of not continuing on the path of industrial animal production. 

Next was "The Scarecrow," which I talked about here. This one pushes its indictment of Big Ag even further (and also suggests that burritos are a good choice). And now they've gone even further, with a four-part TV series available on Hulu Plus called Farmed & Dangerous. I waited until all four episodes were available to do my week free trial of Hulu Plus and watch.

The series is centered around a PR firm called the Industrial Food Image Bureau (IFIB, hee hee) which has as its primary client a Big Ag company called Animoil (a stand-in for Monsanto, obviously) which wants to market a new product called Petro Pellet, which is pure petroleum. In the first episode, they realize that Petro Pellet makes cows explode. A group called the Sustainable Family Farming Association gets a copy of the video of this happening and it goes viral.

The episodes that follow are about the relationship between the daughter of the head of IFIB, who also works there, Sophia, and the head of SFFA, Chip. Over time, Sophia comes to be sympathetic to Chip's cause, but not before a lot of chaos ensues. It hits on all the big issues - sustainability, pesticide and herbicide resistance, GMOs, government subsidies, lobbying and government corruption, Ag-Gag laws, CAFOs (which they call MegaFarm, the Death Star for Cows).

First, the good. I will always applaud Chipotle for trying as a large national chain to bring these issues into the forefront of the public's awareness and concern. They have at the very least opened up a lot of conversation. And Farmed & Dangerous in some spots is genuinely funny (particularly due to Buck, the head of IFIB). 

While critics have suggested that the series really takes aim at farmers with a broad brush and paints them in a bad light, I actually didn't think the series was much about farmers at all. I think who it really skewered was PR firms and industry front-groups that blindly promote Big Ag to the point of absurdity. 

In one particularly interesting segment, Chip is on a morning show and points out how alternate realities exist for Big Ag depending on what they want at a given moment. Sometimes Big Ag wants GMOs to be seen as unique, which is why they voraciously protect their patents. But they argue that when it comes to public health, GMOs aren't unique - they aren't any different than the regular corn. Which is why they oppose labeling on consumer products. In the case of the viral video (a stand-in for the types of CAFO whistleblower videos that Ag-Gag laws aim to curtail), they claim that the videos are fabricated or exaggerated, but then claim that they own the video because it was shot on their property. If it's false, why are you claiming it as your own? 

So I think that exposing the crap that comes out of the PR firms and departments protecting industrial agriculture is something that's sorely needed. Front groups often have deceptively friendly names, which make consumers think they are advocating on behalf of us, when they are really advocating and lobbying for their big clients.

But. Here's my issue with Farmed & Dangerous. With this series, I feel like Chipotle is really starting to mislead by obscuring facts and using hyperbole and satire in a subject that already has a lot of misinformation and passion floating around. When Jon Stewart uses satire to bring communicate news, he typically brings it with a lot of video clips and facts that support his points. He may go over the top, but the message is there as well as the proof. This series doesn't do that. 

For example, Chipotle wants to position itself as a sustainability advocate, and this film makes it seem like all farms that it sources its meat and other ingredients from are like Chip's farm - idyllic and full of pasture and sunlight. In reality, that's not the case. Chipotle sources a lot of meat and often substitutes conventional products when they run out of the "better" choices. If you were really committed to better practices, you'd just not sell the option that you couldn't properly source. But that would eat into their profits and would be unpredictable, and the customers want their chicken when they want it. I would be more compelled to believe they care about humane animal treatment if they stopped selling conventional products at all. There are animals who are not given hormones or antibiotics that are still raised in confinement operations and are not out frolicking in fields for most of their lives like Chip's cow friend. 

I can see farmers' points of criticism that the series seems to pit big farms against small farms, making it seem like all big farms are evil and all small farms are virtuous. In reality, it's not really the size that determines the quality of practices. You can't lump in broad categories like that when it's really the underlying system of agriculture in this country that is flawed. It's not as easy as good guys and bad guys when you dig below the surface. What we need is less control over the food system by a select few corporations, not to be lecturing farmers on what they need to do.

And Chipotle needs to stop equating sustainability with small, family farms and throwing that word around. Not all small farms are "sustainable" - a word which is really hard to define. Not giving your cows hormones doesn't mean that your operation is sustainable. And not all family farms are small. Some mid-size and large farms have been in families for generations. Chipotle isn't knocking on the doors of tiny family farms in my area asking them to provide their tomatoes and peppers. Sustainability is a buzzword that you use to mislead unless you have facts to back up your practices. Using compostable plates isn't enough. And I don't even know that they do that.

In all, I didn't really think Farmed & Dangerous was effective satire. (They need to take a lesson from Jon Stewart on that one.) If they extended the series and added to it, I would be unlikely to watch. Chipotle needs to focus its efforts on making its business live up to its marketing, instead of marketing a business that doesn't actually exist in reality.   

Ag-gag update: constitutional challenge

It's been awhile since I wrote about Ag-gag laws and their impact. (If you aren't familiar with what they are, start here.) They're back in the news again, after Idaho recently passed Senate Bill 1337, which makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment to photograph or videotape abusive, unsanitary or unethical activity on a farm. It was signed into law by Idaho's governor on February 28, and Idaho is now the seventh state to have an active Ag-gag law.

Thankfully, a coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Center for Food Safety, filed a federal lawsuit in mid-March challenging the bill's constitutionality. In the coalition's rationale for the lawsuit, they question journalists' free speech and freedom of the press rights. They also highlight the fact that now, Idaho more severely punishes the person who exposes animal cruelty than the person who commits it.

These laws don't protect animals or even human beings and public health. They protect industry. Which we obviously value in this country, the way we protect large corporations in every way imaginable. 

It's also important to point out that no one is asking these companies to allow someone to set up cameras 24/7 to document what happens in a slaughterhouse. We know what happens in a slaughterhouse. Slaughter. And the adage is probably true on some level that if we watched what happens in a slaughterhouse every day, we might all be vegetarians. Transparency in food doesn't mean we need to see every single second of an industry's work - that's just absurd. 

The big issue here is that whistleblower protection is necessary. The photos and videos that these laws try to exclude are ones that show the company overstepping its legal bounds, not to mention ethical ones. A worker should feel safe in coming forward with legal or ethical concerns and allowing a journalist to do his/her work in documenting such items. These bills make it difficult to even get the evidence to law enforcement to spark an investigation before the person would be arrested under the Ag-gag law. 

Other industries can learn to get along with whistleblower protections. Industries that take money from the government, such as healthcare facilities, all must value whistleblower protections. You can't be retaliated against in any way for exposing fraud or ethical/legal concerns and you are protected by the full extent of the law. This exists to make sure government dollars, and by extension, tax payer dollars, are spent wisely. So why not industrial agriculture? With the amount of subsidies and tax benefits these corporations receive, their workers should receive the same whistleblower protections.

We should not have laws in this country that forbid our citizens from exposing corruption, fraud, cruelty and abuse. We can't claim to be the greatest, most free society on earth if we don't.      

  

yoga mat sandwiches: real threat or hype?

You might have heard the phrase "yoga mat sandwich" tossed around lately. After a prominent food blogger/activist started a petition to get Subway to remove a chemical called azodicarbonamide from its breads, the issue went viral.

Azodicarbonamide is a chemical foaming agent, used in yoga mats and other plastic items to make the item spongy, light and strong. And apparently, bread at Subway. It supposedly "makes bread rise higher, stay soft and form an attractive crust."

But it's not just Subway making "yoga mat sandwiches" - according to a follow up study by the Environmental Working Group, azodicarbonamide actually appears in at least 500 processed food products made by a large number of companies. The World Health Organization has found that there are health risks to workers who are exposed to azodicarbonamide, but no one has done studies on its health effects in humans who ingest it.

So here's the problem. It's fine for these bloggers and activists to try to get the word out about what's in our food. I agree with that wholeheartedly, and to some degree, talk about that in this space. But ok, Subway is now removing that chemical from its bread. But what will they put in its place? Bread that's just made up of flour, yeast, salt and water? Doubtful. 

It's not an effective overall strategy to get one company at a time to remove one ingredient at a time from one product at a time. What we need are comprehensive regulations and overhauls of the food industry in general, so that the FDA does not approve additives for food use in the first place with no scientific evidence as to whether or not they can threaten human health. We need a policy that considers chemicals to be dangerous for food until proven safe, with effective, third-party science.

So go ahead and stay away from processed foods with "yoga mats" in them - but don't believe that the removal of that one chemical from a food makes it healthy and/or clean. Processed foods are processed foods. Don't buy into the hype that industrial food companies are prioritizing public health by removing singular additives - even in the face of increased public awareness, they are still prioritizing profit.

online petitions - effective tool or just armchair activism?

In the age of social media, online petitions were almost inevitable. What better way to marshal support for a cause than to use social media to push the agenda, in hopes that it go viral?

I've signed a few online petitions before, mostly related to food issues. But does that really accomplish anything, or is it just armchair activism - an easy way to assuage our uncomfortable feelings about whatever the injustice is that the petition aims to combat?

Petitions that are sponsored and/or backed by advocacy groups are more likely to have legs. That is, they are using a collection of signatures to advance their already existing lobbying efforts. These groups exist outside of social media and have at least some power to get issues in front of legislators. 

But what about the petitions that are just started by a random person with an issue? I've been emailed petitions to sign to save just about every animal species under the planet, to take every ingredient out of every processed food, to make dolls and toys for kids of all shapes and sizes. (Recently, a White House petition to deport Justin Bieber received enough responses that the White House will have to issue a response.) 

A lot of these issues are good causes that I support in theory. But a lot of them are slightly misguided. For instance, the petition to take artificial colors out of M&Ms so as to not expose children to those chemicals doesn't make any sense to me, since children really shouldn't be eating any M&Ms at all, or at least not enough to make a difference. It's worse to be exposed to those chemicals through the processed foods kids eat at every meal. So why try to get companies to change already unhealthy products to still unhealthy products? 

Shouldn't we be petitioning the FDA and USDA to help us get chemicals out of our food supply, as opposed to individual companies? Consumers can also choose to not purchase M&Ms if they aren't happy about the ingredients. If you don't like the ingredients in Subway's bread, don't eat at Subway and if you choose, let people know why you don't. But most Americans can't go completely off-grid and stop buying their basic food supplies at grocery stores. So shouldn't we be petitioning the government to make our general food supply safe and not just asking for one specific product to remove a specific ingredient?

I think it makes people feel like they are involved in activism when they share petitions and stories on social media. And really, they are. It's a good thing to spread information and raise awareness, and I take part in that myself on a regular basis. But before you sign online petitions and expect them to make a difference, really think about whether or not that petition has a likelihood of affecting change, or if there's a better way to go about it. 

Asking Subway to change its bread isn't going to do anything to reform our food system. Take the time you would spend on online petitions and contact your legislators or write a response when legislation or FDA/USDA rules are up for public comment. Spread those messages on social media. It's awareness of the scope of the real issues in our food supply that will ultimately make a difference.

book review: Foodopoly by Wenonah Hauter

I added this book to my list of reads after I realized that the author is the executive director of Food & Water Watch, an advocacy organization I follow quite closely. I was expecting it to contain about the same types of information that I usually find in books about the food movement. Interesting and informative, but not much new.

Well, I was wrong. Foodopoly did have some familiar themes, but the level of research and explanation in this book blew me away. Hauter's main argument is that while focusing on changing consumer behavior and "voting with your fork" is important and has its benefits, no large scale change will happen without complete reform of the faulty industrial, corporate-controlled agriculture system that we have now. 

What this book does really well is explain how we got to where we are, and what the factors are that contribute to it staying this way (and getting worse). I expected a book with such an extensive and thorough notes section to be dry, and while it did take me longer to read than some other food books, it's because there was so much information to absorb. 

Reading Foodopoly really hammered home for me how much of a privilege it is to be able to buy food from local farmers, living in an urban area where many farmers are able to make a living by providing food direct to consumer. I was reminded that many small and mid-size farms across the country do not have direct-to-consumer sales as an option, and are forced to grow commodity crops where they are paid less than the cost to produce and to work within monopolistic corporate systems. 

This book covers antitrust laws through this country's history and the impact that deregulation has had on food and farming in America. Though I knew that many organic producers have been taken over by giant food conglomerates and that only a handful of corporations control all sectors of our food chain, reading Hauter's logical explanations of what happens behind the scenes makes you realize that this country has allowed business to be the watchdogs of our public health and welfare.  

Foodopoly also covers genetic tinkering - not just genetic engineering of plants and animals, but synthetic biology and the groups that are trying to use government money to actually create life for profit. Here as in other places in the book, compelling evidence and meticulous research support her arguments. 

The only thing I felt this book lacked was a "now what" at the end. I was waiting for a chapter on practical ways to support the kind of large scale political movement she describes, especially after the book fired me up so passionately about moving beyond just supporting our CSAs and avoiding processed foods, etc. I do have a goal to write to my legislators more often this year, and I'll continue to try to read up on legislative and judicial instances where public comment is needed. If you're looking for research and facts to back up the feeling that our system needs to be fixed and not just consumer behavior, Foodopoly is a fantastic place to start.

GMO culture war - is there a middle ground?

Recently, a reporter from Grist, one of the country's premiere environmental magazines, finished a sixth month series on GMOs. He used the series to investigate the truth about GMOs outside of the two opposing narratives that are usually circulated. On one hand you have the pro-GMO people, who see GMOs are a feat of human ingenuity and technology/science that will save agriculture as we know it and go a long way to address starvation and hunger across the globe. On the other hand, the anti-GMO people, who see GMOs as a symptom of corporate control of our food system and the unsustainability of modern agriculture, not to mention a health risk.

His wrap-up piece, "What I learned from six months of GMO research: none of it matters" caused a huge stir, from both sides of the debate. He concluded that the cultural debate actually misses the mark. Since it talks about GMOs in a broad sense, it doesn't allow for discussion of individual GMO plants or organisms. He argues there's a difference between engineering rice to feed starving people and engineering corn to feed pigs in a nation that already eats too much meat. (I need to read the series to see how he feels about genetically engineered animals, like salmon.)

I haven't read all of the pieces in the series (though I probably will start to go through them). And Civil Eats also addressed his piece on their site, with a compelling rebuttal. In particular, that essay addresses what agricultural priorities should be if we are trying to envision a sustainable future. And points out rightfully that the companies involved in GMO technology are also the ones that poisoned us with Agent Orange, etc. The writer acknowledges that the debate does obscure the technological innovations that do need to occur in order to move toward sustainability. 

For me, the GMO issue primarily comes down to the issue of transparency. If I believed that as a nation we could keep corporations accountable to make decisions in the public interest, it would be one thing. But we can't, and we know that much of the scientific research being done about GMOs (all types) is controlled by parties with a financial interest. We need third party research that's independent. That encourages human innovation and scientific development, but with an eye toward sustainability. That researches the health and environmental effects of these plants. And we need a system that errs on the side of caution, not risk, when it comes to public health. 

While I don't agree with him entirely - I think we need to avoid adopting a flippant attitude about GMOs - Nathanael Johnson's Grist piece is food for thought and encourages us to dig through the hype for what's actually true when we talk about GMOs.

picking your ethical battles as a consumer

In our global economy, where much of what we consume from foods to retail goods is produced overseas, it's hard to know not only what you are getting, but who made it and where. "Ethically sourced" and "conflict free" are some of the buzz words surrounding this issue. They come up in the media when a large-scale tragedy occurs (such as the collapse of a garment factory in Bangladesh that killed more than 1,000 workers) or a lawsuit is filed (such as the one filed against Apple for child labor in its Chinese factories).

We're outraged when we hear about these incidents, and rightfully so. And they go on and on. Diamonds that are called "conflict" or "blood" diamonds (because they are illegally mined and sold to fund wars in war zones. Chocolate harvested by children who are also enslaved. Smart phones with parts made in Asian factories with bad conditions and gold mined with child labor in Africa. Coffee and other crops harvested with little to no profit to the grower. Beloved cookies made with palm oil, which destroys habitat for animals and precious rainforest. You could write for days on each of these issues and the conflicts they create.

Many of these lines are murky. For instance, it is almost entirely impossible to source a conflict-free diamond unless it's made in a laboratory. Once diamonds are brought in for trade, they are legitimized and their "dirty histories" wiped away. (See this enlightening article for details on why this is the case.) And while most people are interested in the use of diamond profit to fund wars, there's also the issue of who mines those stones in the first place - children. 

The same goes for smart phones. An ever-expanding electronic industry has made the demand for gold and the other minerals (copper, cobalt, tin, etc.) used in production increase, and Human Rights Watch has questioned the use of child labor in very dangerous mining jobs. Like diamonds, it's nearly impossible to buy an ethically "clean" smart phone. The supply chains for the hundreds of materials used to create a phone are complex, diverse and sometimes untraceable.   

I only very rarely eat chocolate that is not fair trade or organic. (See this post - did a slave harvest the cocoa in your candy bar? for details.) I don't eat at fast food restaurants for a variety of ethical reasons that go beyond health. 

I also wear an engagement ring with a diamond in it. I use a smart phone and a Chromebook.

I buy as much produce and meat from local farms as possible, and buy other handmade, local products when I can. 

I wear clothes that I purchase at retail stores that don't say "Made in the USA" on the tags. Or that the cloth it was made from is produced there either.

So what do you do? What do you do if you want to be an ethical consumer in a world where those lines are sometimes virtually impossible to understand?

My philosophy is this. I heard during a lecture once (or read in a book maybe?) that you can judge a person by the integrity of their compromises. For myself, I try to pick battles that meet two criteria: (1) it's within my control and (2) has a reasonable alternative which can satisfy my ethical conundrum. 

I can choose to not purchase produce and other food products (meat, dairy, etc.) which are not produced and farmed in a manner I approve of, and a reasonable alternative is to buy them locally and be a member of a CSA. I don't eat at fast food restaurants because I can reasonably choose local restaurants where many of my ethical issues with fast food are not present. Or I can just not eat out at all. (Novel idea!) Chocolate isn't even a necessary food in the first place, but if I want chocolate, I can buy fair trade or organic chocolate, which satisfies my issue with child labor and slavery practices.

But I am going to choose to use a cell phone and to keep wearing my engagement ring. Because I can't buy a locally made cell phone as an alternative, there's no one who benefits from me not purchasing that one phone. I would be better off supporting organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which use their lobbying power to help change legislation to protect labor forces and get corporations (such as Apple and other electronics manufacturers) to own up to their supply chains and face monetary penalties for not doing so. 

That being said, I don't need to go overboard on my consumption of retail goods in the first place. I realize that there are many other ways in which I could live my life "more ethically" and I try to think through purchases and understand what role I play in the world by being a consumer. I also do my best to research and understand what's at stake with a particular issue, so that I'm not just hopping on a trendy, petition-signing bandwagon.

At the end of the day, I hope my compromises can be judged to be made with integrity, in the absence of perfection.  

Real Life CSA: why I'm not sharing what we got this week

This was a big week for us, CSA-wise. A great final meat share from Clarion River Organics and our next-to-the-last produce share from Kretschmann Family Organic Farm.

I usually take photos and gush about all the goodness that we are so blessed to have. But I'm not posting them until next week. Why? Because if the proposed rules for the Food Safety Modernization Act go into effect unchanged, as currently written? There might not be any more Real Life CSA posts. There might be many less small farms, community supported agriculture programs. The farms in our community that we have come to love would have their viability threatened, and who knows how many shares they could support, if any? 

There wouldn't be any photos of organic greens, because the compost restrictions would make it hard to grow those locally. We wouldn't benefit from the years of accumulated agricultural knowledge that our farmers carry, because they'd be told to sanitize, sterilize and modernize, with no regard for what that actually means on a practical level. The restrictions on wildlife encroaching on crops? Have these people BEEN to Pennsylvania? Do they think deer will respect property lines?

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review featured Don Kretschmann, the owner of our produce CSA, in an article yesterday that shows you in photos how his farm is threatened by these FSMA rules. Read it. 

Both of our CSAs have spoken up about how it would affect them. Read about it here and here. These are not groups that are typically outspoken about their political views. They're too busy planting things and harvesting things. But it was important enough for them to take time out to speak up, and we owe them a few minutes of our time to comment in support.

I know I have mentioned this issue and the importance of commenting on these rules many times over the last couple months, and I've tweeted about it a lot too. Here's the thing. Being a CSA subscriber is a great joy for us - and that's not hyperbole. It's a privilege to be able to source such wonderful food locally - one that we don't take for granted. I might not know the technical ins and outs of farming and I'm no food policy expert. I'm just a normal consumer that can't imagine a summer, or a winter for that matter, without my local farms. 

Americans love to complain about our government. I think we can be disillusioned with the democratic process sometimes, feeling voiceless in the face of what feels like so many things we can't change. But this is a chance to participate and to use your voice. All the things they taught you in elementary school about government? This is where it comes alive.

For more information on how to comment, TODAY, before it's too late, visit the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's FSMA section here.

Grover's grapes?: marketing produce to children

Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama held a press conference with Elmo and Rosita, Muppets from Sesame Street. (Side note - does it make me super old that I have no idea who this Rosita character is?) She was announcing that Sesame Street will allow its characters to be used to market fresh produce, including fruits and vegetables, to children free of licensing fees for 2 years. This is an effort in partnership with the Produce Marketing Association and the Partnership for a Healthier America, and it coincides with the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign. 

This reminds me a lot of the Chipotle campaign - where at first glance it seems awesome and simple, but it is actually a lot more complex. The good first - any effort to get kids to eat more fruit and vegetables is important. Kids need vitamins and nutrients as they grow and develop, and eating lots of fruits and vegetables at a young age helps to build healthy habits and allow kids to develop a taste for more than just chicken nuggets and macaroni and cheese. 

But is the best way to get them to eat the fruits and vegetables to package them and put famous characters on them?   

As far as characters go, they could have chosen worse than Sesame Street. Sesame Workshop has contributed to the education of millions of American children over the years. I grew up on Sesame Street and I know I learned so much from watching it on PBS.

Also, Sesame Workshop is giving up a lot of profit in waiving licensing fees for two years. That's a big deal, even considering the PR boost they will get by the gesture. 

But at the end of the day, I am not convinced that marketing to children is even really appropriate in any context. Marketing at its most basic level is about manipulating information to persuade someone of something. Young children haven't developed the reasoning skills to be able to discern between education and marketing. Putting characters on packaging, even of healthy foods, reinforces the idea that you should buy items with characters on them. Sesame Street characters already appear on foods for kids - processed, packaged foods. And to them, what's the difference between Grover, Disney Princesses, Hello Kitty or Tony the Tiger? 

It would be more compelling to me if characters weren't currently used on all manner of junk food products aimed at kids. They will likely be unable to differentiate between Grover on a package of cookies and Grover on a package of grapes. I recall wanting my mom to buy products I knew I didn't like, simply because of the packaging. I hated sliced white bread when I was a kid, but I know I lobbied for her to buy Wonder Bread because it had cheerful polka dots on it. I was unable to reason that I didn't actually even want to eat it. This is not to say that items shouldn't be attractively packaged or designed. But how much more seductive is Elmo to a child than polka dots? A lot.

It can also be argued that there might be a price increase in the fruits and vegetables with the characters on them, considering that previously unpackaged vegetables and fruits might need plastic bags to feature the characters. That all remains to be seen, as the marketing for these products actually takes shape. I hope that it's done really carefully, and that it will encourage other companies to really consider what messaging they are sending to children. 

Real Life CSA: week 22, produce

Even though the season is winding down, we still get an impressive amount of produce in the share - and not just storage crops.

Going to have a pepper slice-a-thon this weekend and get a bunch frozen for winter fajitas, since we already have enough chili peppers hanging to dry in our kitchen (which you've seen if you follow me on Instagram @nextgenhouse)

This is the second week for turnip greens and I'm not disappointed. We ate last week's turnip greens sauteed with the previous week's chard as a side dish for the nice dinner we made ourselves on our wedding anniversary this week. Mark's found a great way to leech the bitterness out is to use a little white wine or broth to allow the greens to cook longer while the liquid evaporates. It also lends a good flavor to them. I've never enjoyed bitter greens so much as this season!

More delicious apples this week. Trying to savor these guys every time, knowing we won't be getting them forever. But a great way to savor great apples through the winter is...

We're drinking this fresh, but you can also freeze the whole half gallon by pouring off and enjoying about a half a cup to give it room to expand. We had no choice but to drink this fresh anyway, considering our chest freezer is officially packed to capacity. I'm not even sure another molecule of ice could fit in there. (The peppers will have to be shoved in the upstairs freezer. Might have to eat up some ice cream to make room. What a sacrifice.)

Gratuitous slightly unfocused tendril shot!

The radishes and greens will be salad this week, and the potatoes will be stored if we don't use them as a side. As for the dill, I'm thinking of drying it or preserving it in another way since we are unlikely to use that enormous bunch in one week of recipes.

I'm not sure how many weeks we have left, but I will miss this CSA when it's done for the season. 

Remember that if you're in the same boat - that you enjoy your CSA and the fresh variety of foods it brings to your diet, comments are still being accepted on the FDA's new rules for the Food Safety Modernization Act that threaten small farms and local producers. Read more directly from our CSA about how they would be specifically affected by these potential rules here. You can read my comment and find instructions on how to submit your own here.

Real Life CSA: week 20, produce

This week's share was the first in months to not include tomatoes, which definitely means we're in to fall now. We got a great assortment this week, though. 

But before I share what we received this week, I have to take time to mention that the bounty that we get each year from our CSA is truly threatened by new rules that the FDA is trying to establish due to the Food Safety Modernization Act. These rules jeopardize small farms and by extension, our economy, environment and health. You can read directly from our produce CSA why this is such an issue for them here.

Often we think that one voice doesn't matter when it comes to our government and that we're too busy to take the time to speak up when it matters. If you've ever enjoyed produce from your CSA or your local farmers markets, this affects you. Take 10 minutes out of your schedule today to read about these rules and how they will directly affect your community. I linked to resources and ways to comment in this post, last week. It's worth it, if for no other reason than to stand up next to farmers and show your support as a consumer. They shouldn't have to fight this battle alone.

With that said, check out what we received this week.

Depending on what we cook this week, I might slice and freeze peppers, since we have an abundance of them right now. Broccoli will make a great side. (We never get tired of broccoli as a side. Just plain steamed in all its own glory. Yes, I just used the word glory in a sentence about broccoli.)

These greens are great and so flavorful. I love the pieces that have tendrils.

These tiny eggplants might find their way into a slow cooker recipe this week. We've been trying to take advantage of the slow cooker more lately, to take some of the time burden off of cooking at home. In fact, a lentil stew with tomatoes is in the crock pot right now!

The apples this year have been amazing. They are crisp and so flavorful, it makes you never want to touch a waxy apple again. If you've ever wondered why these apples have gray spots, it's from the natural clay treatments they get to ward off disease and pests. It's perfectly fine to eat and you don't even taste it. I think it gives them character.

But taking the prize this week for most beautiful produce is definitely the chard. We like to eat this sauteed with garlic, and even after cooking, the colors are so vibrant.

What did you get in your CSA share this week?

Proposed FDA rules - speak up to support local farms!

In support of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the FDA is creating new rules which threaten small farms, sustainable and organic agriculture and farm conservation efforts and the environment. According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), the new rules as currently written will “put many farms out of business, reduce the supply of fresh, local produce in schools and hospitals, push farmers to tear out wildlife habitat, and increase the use of chemicals rather than natural fertilizers.”

A comment period is open until November 15, and it’s important that we speak out to support the farms that supply the food we enjoy so much and that make this area of the country so agriculturally vibrant. (Despite the government shutdown, comments are still accepted on the FDA website.)
Using a template provided by the NSAC, I wrote my own customized comment to submit. You can find more information on the proposed rules, as well as instructions for how to submit your comment on this special website. 

Feel free to copy my comment that appears below or write your own – but either way, speak up. Every voice matters – and if you’ve enjoyed a CSA this season, part of that “community support” is to stand beside farmers and to do what’s right for them and our community and environment.

Follow NSAC on Twitter at @sustainableag for the latest updates – spread the word! 

---
Re: Preventive Controls Rule: FDA-2011-N-0920, Produce Standards Rule: FDA-2011-N-0921

I am a concerned consumer, parent, entrepreneur, etc. writing because I am concerned about the impact that FDA’s proposed FSMA rules will have on the farms where I source my food, as well as the environment and my local economy. I ask you to ensure that new regulations do not put family farms out of business, harm farmers’ soil, water, and wildlife conservation efforts, or shut down the growth of local and regional healthy food systems!

My family subscribes to community supported agriculture programs from local farms, which enables us to have access to the freshest, healthiest produce, grown without practices that harm farm workers or the environment. These small businesses are not just an asset to our local economy, but an asset to the health and well being of our community members. Many local farms donate produce to needy families or offer reduced price shares and give back to the community that supports them in many ways. They also allow us to purchase healthy food without the extra markup from conventional stores, adding an economic benefit – the money stays entirely in our community instead of benefiting out of state or out of country corporations. These farms are in indispensable part of our region and my own life. 

I urge you to modify the rules so that they:
•    Allow farmers to use sustainable farming practices, including those already allowed and encouraged by existing federal organic standards and conservation programs. Specifically, FDA must not exceed the strict standards for the use of manure and compost used in certified organic production and regulated by the National Organic Program.

•    Ensure that diversified and innovative farms, particularly those pioneering models for increased access to healthy, local foods, continue to grow and thrive without being stifled. Specifically, FDA needs to clarify two key definitions: first, as Congress required, FDA must affirm that farmers markets, CSAs, roadside stands, and other direct-to-consumer vendors fall under the definition of a “retail food establishment” and are therefore not facilities subject to additional regulation. Second, FDA should adopt at least the $1,000,000 threshold for a very small business and base it on the value of ‘regulated product,’ not ‘all food,’ to ensure smaller farms and businesses (like food hubs) fall under the scale-appropriate requirements and aren’t subject to high cost, industrial-scale regulation.

•    Provide options that treat family farms fairly, with due process and without excessive costs. Specifically, FDA must clearly define the “material conditions” that lead to a withdrawal of a farmer’s protected status in scientifically measurable terms. FDA must also outline a clear, fair, process for justifying the withdrawal of a farmer’s protected status and for how a farmer can regain that status.

waste not, want not - 5 tips to reduce waste

After thoroughly purging and organizing the belongings in just one room of our house this weekend, I got to thinking about waste – specifically how much space has been wasted in our house and also what opportunities are wasted when we store belongings away that could be useful for someone else, if not for us.

Recently, my coworker told me about hearing a news report about the amount of food that is wasted because of expiration dates and labels. Her church organizes a food pantry and is not able to serve or give away food that is “past dated” – even if it’s perfectly safe, edible and even delicious. On one hand, I understand why this guidance is in place for groups that are serving large amounts of people – you don’t want to gamble with people’s safety when you are responsible for others, particularly vulnerable populations. But unfortunately, the dates and labels themselves are misleading.

According to the study that has been reported recently, 90% of Americans say they have prematurely thrown out food because they misinterpreted the labels and dates on the package. These labels are generally suggestions from the manufacturers about peak freshness, not suitability for consumption. According to the same article, “in 2012, an NRDC study found as much as 40 percent of the country’s food supply goes uneaten. The cost of that wasted food? Roughly $165 billion, including $900 million in "expired" food. A family of four, the study found, spends an average of $455 a year on food it doesn't eat.” (emphasis mine) We should look at those numbers and find them unpalatable (no pun intended).

That’s a staggering amount of food waste, especially when industrial agriculture is trying to tell us that they need to produce more to feed the world. We already produce more food than this country needs (not to mention that this country eats more calories a day than it needs to). The reason we have hunger issues in this country is not production – it’s distribution and access.

So what can you do? Here are five strategies we use in our house.

1. Plan your meals.
Each week, we plan out what we’re going to make for dinner and estimate the leftovers to determine lunches. This allows us to have a very good idea of what we can eat in a week’s time and to know exactly what we will need on a given day. We check what we have in our pantry and refrigerator when we are choosing meals – and even have our freezer contents in a shared spreadsheet so we can keep track of what’s hiding at the bottom!

2. Make a shopping list and stick to it.
Use your meal plan to determine what you need for the week and make a list. When you go to the store, don’t veer from the list. We make exceptions when pantry staples are on sale and we can stock up at a savings, but we only buy things we know we will use. If you go to the store without a plan, you’ll buy things that you feel like eating when you’re there, but you might not want to eat later on. You also run the risk of not buying the right quantities. 

3. Buy from the bulk section when you can – and buy only what you need.
We buy spices from the bulk section, as well as grains like oats and rice and dried fruits and nuts for granola. Usually the prices are lower in general than buying the items in a commercially packaged container, but it also helps you only buy what you can use at its peak of freshness. Spices lose their potency over time, so it’s better to buy 4 tablespoons of ginger at a time for a small container at home than enough ginger for a bakery from a warehouse store.

4. Smell and look at your food.
Your milk says “best by 10-8.” It’s past October 8, so instead of getting rid of it immediately, open the container and smell it. You will know when milk has “gone off” or spoiled. We’ve had containers of sour cream we’ve used a month after the “best by” date – no mold, spoilage or nasty smells indicates that it’s safe to eat. The benefit of eating a diet of whole foods is that you’re eating things that are designed to go bad. (We’ve all seen the photos of fast food cheeseburgers that have been petrified for 30 years but somehow never spoiled.) Fruit and vegetables? They rot. Bread molds and so does cheese. Meat rots - in a terribly smelly way. Your food will “let you know” when it’s not safe to eat anymore. (Remember that this is the way that people determined whether or not their food was safe before the advent of the government labels.)

5. Consider labels to be guidelines and not rules.
Go ahead and use the dates as a guideline – but they aren’t rules. You can just as easily get a container of yogurt from the store, open it before the “sell by” date and find mold as you can if the date has passed. Don’t throw away perfectly good food because someone 8 weeks ago estimated that it might not be quite so fresh after a certain point. You will see a difference in your budget when you do!

***
October Simplified update: Listed about 50 books for sale that had the potential to help me recoup some cost and packed up the rest to donate and repurposed mismatched sheets as drop cloths for Mark’s wood working space. Up next, the guest bedroom!