shrewdfood

Proposition 2 - an ethical eater's dilemma

2008-10-16T14:08:00.000-07:00

In reading through the current booklet of propositions that will be on the California ballot in the November elections, I was particularly intrigued and excited by Proposition 2. Here is how it is described in the "quick reference guide" at the front of the election materials:

Requires that certain farm animals be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around. Limited exceptions apply. Fiscal impact: Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually. Potential minor local state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.

I wholeheartedly support the intention of this bill. Of course pregnant pigs should have room to turn around. Of course calves raised for veal should have access to the outdoors. Of course chickens should be able to fully extend their wings. Come on, they're animals! How far removed from nature has our society become that we ever took these rights away from the animals?

But here's the problem: this proposition only affects the state of California. As a result, it seems likely that rather than implement the required changes if this measure were adopted, farmers would move their farms to states where these laws don't exist. Other farms would go out of business. Most consumers would be left buying eggs from out of state, or Mexico, produced by chickens that were no better treated than they were in California before Prop 2. Those eggs would probably cost more. So does Proposition 2 really get us anywhere?

Well, yes. I don't think we can possibly justify, even in the name of cheapness, the cruel and inhumane treatment that we're currently inflicting on these animals. Somebody has to take the lead on ending this treatment- and California, which has led on so many ethical issues, should again step up to the plate. Is it unreasonable to hope that other states (or, perhaps, the federal government) will follow suit?

The LA Times and the SF Chronicle both tell us to vote no on Proposition 2, while the NY Times tells us to vote yes. I knew I left my heart in New York.

Note: Oprah's show yesterday featured a segment called "Conscious Choices" about Proposition 2 and the way we eat. I didn't watch it, but you can read a summary and see photos here.

Obesity study casts grim outlook

2008-08-05T12:43:00.000-07:00

According to a recent study published in Obesity magazine and reported on the Johns Hopkins website, by 2030, 86% of American adults will be either overweight or obese. Four scientists tracked trends based on historical data over the last thirty years to come up with their findings. Certain demographic segments are projected to fare worse than others; specifically, 96% of black women and 91% of Mexican-American men are predicted to be overweight. Incidentally, blacks and Hispanics represent the two lowest-income segments of the U.S. population (Asians and whites are the highest-income segments).

So, let the finger-pointing begin. Where to start? Shall we blame the low cost of processed food, full of high fructose corn syrup and other zero-nutrition components, relative to the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables? Should we instead point the finger at companies such as McDonald's for providing highly caloric and fatty burgers for 99 cents, while charging upwards of $5 for a fresh salad? Should we blame ourselves, for not monitoring our portion sizes, failing to ensure we eat balanced diets, and eating too much and too often?

How will you ensure that you're not in the 86% category by 2030? More importantly, how can we bring that figure down as a nation?

Humane food labels

2008-07-14T18:03:00.000-07:00

Every time I have to buy eggs at a grocery store, I read the labels on each of the cartons and feel alternately puzzled and overwhelmed by the variety of claims made by these producers. I know what I want: eggs that come from chickens who have led healthy, chemical-free lives, that were able to be chickens in a chicken yard and run around and peck their chickens' hearts out, eating food that chickens were meant to eat, laying eggs when they want and where they want, just like the chickens we used to raise at my dad's house. Sadly, labels such as "free range" and "cage free" don't offer much insight into the chickens' lives, because they are unregulated terms that have been adopted unscrupulously in some cases.

Have you ever faced this same problem of trying to decide which eggs are "best," from a humane-treatment standpoint? If so, then you might benefit from this cheat sheet, courtesy of the World Society for the Protection of Animals. In addition to demystifying the claims on egg cartons, this guide gives advice on which poultry, beef and pork products to buy to ensure that your food dollars support farms that raise animals in a humane and sustainable manner. (My one suggestion, aside from seeking out the "best" options below, is to choose locally-raised products when possible.)

"Humane Food Labels"
(adapted from the WSPA)

GOOD:

* These labels cover only one aspect of animal care and a third party does not verify compliance with the standards.

“Cage free” (eggs)
“Free range” (eggs, chicken, duck, goose, turkey)
“Grass fed” (dairy, beef, lamb)

BETTER
* These labels feature a higher level of animal welfare, but the standards are either not verified by a third party or cover only a limited aspect of animal care.

“Free range” (beef, bison, lamb, pork)
“Pasture raised” (dairy, eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, bison, lamb, pork)
“USDA organic” (dairy, eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, bison, lamb, pork)

BEST
* These labels cover multiple aspects of animal care and an independent third party verifies compliance with the standards.

“American Humane Certified” (dairy, eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, lamb, pork)
“Animal Welfare Approved” (dairy, eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, lamb, pork)
“Certified Humane” (dairy, eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, lamb, pork)

NOT NECESSARILY HUMANE

“No antibiotics used” / “No hormones administered” – The government does not conduct testing to verify these claims. Hormones are prohibited in the raising of poultry, so this labeling claim is meaningless when used on chicken and turkey products. The “no antibiotics used” label suggests the animal wasn’t raised on a factory farm but by itself is not an indicator of high animal welfare.
“Natural” – This label currently has no relevance to animal welfare whatsoever. It merely indicates that the product was minimally processed and contains no dyes or preservatives. WSPA has recommended that this claim be re-named “minimally processed.”
“Naturally raised” – The USDA has proposed but not finalized a definition for this claim. Producers are using this label to indicate that the animal was raised without the use of antibiotics and hormones and had been given only vegetarian feed. WSPA is opposing the proposed standard because it does not require freedom of movement and access to fresh air and sunlight.

Worldwide food crisis (and apologies for my long hiatus)

2008-05-28T17:28:00.000-07:00

Hello readers!

Between my business and wedding planning, I have been so busy recently that I've completely neglected my blog. Today I was reminded that by doing so, I've also been neglecting my readers- and there's really no excuse for that. So, without further ado, I want to catch you up on what I've been thinking -- if not blogging -- about, regarding ethics and the food world. Today's topic: the worldwide food shortage and crisis.

You know what makes me feel ridiculously elitist and out of touch? The thought that I spend time blogging about why you should choose grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef, while in countries like Haiti and Somalia, people are dying from starvation and begging the government to help them procure any food at all. Granted, the worldwide food crisis is not a problem I can tackle single-handedly. But what can we, as rich (comparatively), well-fed Westerners do in reaction to the global food crisis- short of sending food and money to the impacted countries?

Here are my ideas:
1) Eat less. Almost all of us could stand to cut back on our food intake. Seriously. Try reducing your portions a little bit, or resisting the urge to have that afternoon snack, or refusing to go back for seconds.

2) Eat less meat. If you replace even one or two meals per week with vegetarian meals, you'll save yourself money, and you'll do your small part in easing global food chain pressures caused (in part) by our highly carnivorous diets.

3) Buy Certified Fair Trade products. These products have been verified to ensure that producers receive a fair price, that employees work in fair labor conditions, and that middlemen are eliminated where possible so that as much as the purchase price as possible goes directly to the farmers/producers. I highly recommend Trader Joe's new "Fair Trade Organic Bolivian Blend" coffee- delicious and, because it's Trader Joe's, still reasonably priced. (Learn more about Fair Trade products here.)

4) Walk or bike instead of using your car- even when you're going to the grocery store! I know it's a pain, but just take a backpack and think of those muscles you're developing. Also, if you're eating less (per item 1) then your backpack won't even be that heavy. (Okay- this may seem tangential at best to the global food crisis. But insofar as the food shortage relates to the high price of oil, any relief we can give on the demand for oil would theoretically help global prices to come down...)

5) Boycott Exxon-Mobil. You probably can't avoid using your car entirely, but when you do have to fill up, do so anywhere except at an Exxon or Mobil station. In 2007, Exxon-Mobil recorded the highest profits of any company EVER-- even while most Americans are being stretched thin by rising gas and food prices. Furthermore, Exxon-Mobil is least among the oil companies in investing in alternative energies. They don't deserve our patronage.

Now readers, what ideas do you all have?

My CSA rocks!

2008-03-12T15:21:00.000-07:00

Gentle readers,
First, I'd like to apologize for the long hiatus between posts. If it counts for anything, I think about posting at least once a day. Then, somehow, life gets in the way.

Now I'm going to tell you why joining a CSA is one of the best ethical-eating moves you can make. For those unfamiliar with the term, CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. Basically, CSAs are farms - or sometimes, groups of farms - that offer "subscriptions" to their output. Customers subscribe to a CSA by paying a fee, and in return, they receive a box of food on a regular basis. There are CSAs for fruits and vegetables, as well as some that offer eggs, dairy, meat, or even fresh flowers. You can find a CSA through Local Harvest, or you might inquire at your local farmer's market.

G and I recently signed up for a CSA with Full Belly Farm, an organic farm in Guinda, California. Our decision to go with Full Belly over other CSAs was a bit arbitrary, but I liked that a) they have a booth at our farmer's market, b) someone recommended them to me personally, and c) they are certified organic and somehow still inexpensive. To give you an idea: we initially signed up for 4 boxes, to be delivered every other week. We paid $68 ($17/box). Each box contains 6-8 different vegetables (and occasionally fruits), the right amount for us to use up in two weeks, given that we occasionally go out of town or eat out. The picture at left is the contents of one of our boxes (the bag in the back contains stir-fry greens). Full Belly drops off their boxes in different locations throughout the Bay Area, and our location is a mere three blocks from our apartment.

There are several textbook reasons that CSAs are worth trying. First, they provide a more regular and predictable income stream to farmers than do Farmer's Markets, enabling farmers to better manage their resources, forecast demand levels and plant accordingly. Second, by supporting local farmers, you ensure that your food travels as few miles as possible and will be as fresh as possible on your plate. Third, if you buy from local farmers, you are better able to learn about their growing practices, including treatment of their laborers, sustainability initiatives, etc. (G and I hope to visit our farm in the spring and see for ourselves!)

But here's the kicker: CSA boxes force you to get creative in the kitchen and to eat foods that you might not eat otherwise. We all know that we're supposed to eat a variety of foods. But if you're like me, you have a regular rotation of foods you buy and recipes you make. In terms of vegetables, my go-to choices are spinach and carrots, and even at the farmer's market I tend not to stray too far from the norm. With the CSA subscription, however, I don't get to choose which veggies come my way. And I can't bear to waste food. So when I receive my CSA box, I find myself poring over recipe books and sifting through websites to find recipes that will showcase my CSA veggies. This has proven an exhilarating adventure, a sort of Iron Chef without cameras or competitors. Best of all, G and I are eating more vegetables than ever before.

Some examples:

In our first CSA box we received Kabocha squash, which I had never used before. I made a delicious squash soup and recently had the leftovers from the freezer. It held up beautifully.
This week we received some beautiful red beets with their greens attached. Normally I'm not much of a beet person, but I adapted a recipe I found online and made a lovely roasted beet salad on a bed of beet greens. Delicious! I've written out my recipe below. I had never cooked with beet greens before.
Yesterday, I found myself with a head of red cabbage and some leeks. I adapted a Cooking Light recipe for Moo-Shu vegetables, switching the green cabbage for red and the green onions for the leeks, and throwing in some chicken for protein. I was quite happy with the outcome, and G had seconds.

Sometimes it takes a little forceful encouragement to break us from our routines. For me, our CSA provides that push, and I'm glad for it. I encourage you to try one for yourself.

_____
Jill's Roasted Beet and Beet Greens Salad

5 small beets w/ greens attached
2 t. olive oil
1 t. balsamic vinegar
sea salt
1 t. olive oil
2 t. cider vinegar
1 t. sugar
2 T. chopped walnuts
2 T. crumbled blue cheese

Chop off beet greens, wash, and set aside. Wash beets and trim ends. Wrap beets in foil and roast in a 425 F oven for 50 minutes, or until tender (test with a fork). Remove, cool, and slice into 1/2 inch wedges. Toss with oil, balsamic vinegar, and a dash of freshly ground sea salt.

Heat 1 t. olive oil in a saute pan, and add beet greens. Cover and cook 1-2 minutes, until wilted. Add cider vinegar and sugar; toss to coat and cook 30 seconds more. Place greens on plates; top with walnuts, blue cheese, and roasted beets.

Serves 2, generously.

Beef recall and downer cow update

2008-02-17T17:27:00.000-08:00

As you've probably seen by now in the New York Times or other media outlets, the USDA has just mandated the largest beef recall in history. The 143 million pounds of beef that have been recalled were supplied by the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, the same company that incited an outcry (by myself and others) over their inhumane treatment of cattle, as documented by a Humane Society employee.

Much of the media coverage of this recall has been focused on the dangers of this meat in the food supply. The Westland/Hallmark company is one of the largest suppliers to the National School Lunch Program, so people are concerned (justifiably) about how their childrens' health might be at risk.

I agree that health concerns are definitely one of the important issues that must be addressed in a situation like this. But I am both upset and perplexed that fewer news outlets have focused on the animal welfare aspect of the story. The employees and manager in the video have been fired, and criminal charges are being brought against them. But what about the companies themselves? Will no legal action be taken against them? Will other cattle companies make pledges to ensure the welfare of their cows from birth to death? Where are the voices demanding greater transparency and heightened accountability?

Better yet, when will we all just acknowledge that factory farming is an inherently inhumane and dangerous system and that it has to go?

Why factory farms must go

2008-02-10T16:57:00.000-08:00

I have a video to share with you, but I want to warn you that it is very graphic and disturbing. While extremely difficult to watch, the video nonetheless tells a truth about our society that we should all confront. In their insistence on profit as the sole motive and driver behind their business, factory farms (CAFOs) have turned a blind eye to basic animal dignity and welfare, and behavior like the following becomes all too common.

The video makes me outraged. What kind of a society have we become, that we can allow such practices to take place? This incident is not isolated; a search on YouTube reveals other videos of downer cows being abused. In some ways I'm not surprised; these videos are consistent with the findings in Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore's Dilemma. A factory farm is, by nature, driven to produce the most meat possible at the lowest cost possible. Cows can't be treated humanely, because that would make for less productivity and higher expenses. Sadly, we are as guilty as the CAFOs. Every time we eat a fast-food hamburger, or every time we buy regular beef from our local grocery store, we tacitly endorse the practices of factory farms.

I don't think you need to go vegetarian (necessarily) to ensure ethical treatment of animals- although many a vegetarian would disagree with me on that point. Rather, I think it is important that we care enough to read labels, ask for information, and learn as much as possible about how the animals lived and died prior to becoming our food. Then we can make responsible decisions about the foods we eat, and we can opt to vote with our forks to end inhumane or cruel treatment of animals.

Learn more at the Humane Society website.

Buffalo: a supermeat!

2008-02-04T17:34:00.000-08:00

I first discovered the buffalo burger when I was living in New York several years ago. It was in a diner of all places- not normally the kind of establishment where you expect to find new foods, but then, this was New York. On this particular visit to the Malibu Diner, there were table tents promoting the nutritional qualities of their buffalo burgers. Healthy burgers? I figured I'd have to try them. After one bite, I was hooked. High in protein, low in fat, and delicious (not at all like oft-bland turkey or chicken burgers); they quickly became a staple of my New York diet.

These days, when my food choices have as much to do with ethics as with health and taste, I am delighted to have discovered yet another reason to opt for buffalo meat. It turns out that bison, or American buffalo, are one of the most sustainably-raised meat sources in our country. Because they are native to North America, bison have co-evolved with the natural grasses that grow on prairie land. Consequently, they do not need (and are not administered) antibiotics or growth hormones in order to thrive. Furthermore, bison are gentler on the land than cattle, and they may even enhance the land; this article cites researchers who claim that bison-grazed prairie yields greater plant diversity than ungrazed land. Unlike cattle, bison are not domesticated: they graze on their native grasses and require lots of room to roam. Their grass preference contributes to their healthier, lower-fat nutritional profile.

When I was in Bozeman recently, the front page of the paper had an article about bison. (You've got to love that about Bozeman.) It turns out that Ted Turner is the largest bison rancher in the country, and that one of his ranches is just outside of Bozeman. Turner has a chain of restaurants called Ted's Montana Grill that specializes in all things buffalo. (The chain has not yet reached California, but those of you in New York should try the Rockefeller Center location at some point and let me know how it is). Ironically, there is not yet a Ted's Montana Grill in Montana, but that will change this summer, when Bozeman gets its own Ted's. Meanwhile, keep your eyes peeled when you're out at a restaurant, and taste some of that delicious, healthy, ethical goodness for yourself. In the Bay Area, you can try buffalo burgers at Pearl's, Buffalo Burger (you don't say!), or Bullshead Restaurant.

A note to home chefs: since buffalo is lower in fat than other meats, you have to take special care not to overcook it; otherwise, it will be dry and tasteless. The National Bison Association recommends cooking bison "slow and low"- that is, at low temperatures for lengthy periods. If you're making buffalo burgers, cook at medium heat for 4-6 minutes per side. You can find buffalo meat at any natural/organic grocery store, some farmer's markets, and the occasional forward-thinking "regular" grocery store (Ukrop's). Here's a link to some buffalo recipes to get you started!

Attack of the clones

2008-01-20T20:36:00.000-08:00

The FDA has recently determined that "meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals." (Read the full press release here.) Until now, meat and dairy farmers had agreed not to sell any products that were from clones or offspring of clones. This latest decision clears the way for cloned beef, pork and dairy products to enter the food system. The FDA has also stated that food from cloned animals need not be labeled as such, because "food derived from these sources is no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals."

Frankly, this makes me squeamish. I can't pretend to challenge the science or methodology of the study, so I'll admit that my squeamishness may be entirely irrational. But there it is. I don't want to eat bacon from a cloned pig, or drink milk from a cloned cow. I just don't.

I fully support the use of cloning animals to develop cures or treatments for human ailments. I support cloning human embryos for the same purpose. But cloning for food? Isn't that a scenario out of some futuristic movie that nobody expects to come true?

My benign reaction is that, if we have reached the point of cloning animals in order to have enough meat or dairy products to feed ourselves, then as a society we are probably eating too much of those products. My more sinister reaction is that it is probably the large corporations who are behind the idea of cloning animals for use in the food supply. The FDA alludes to this, stating, "clones are intended to be used as elite breeding animals to introduce desirable traits into herds more rapidly than would be possible using conventional breeding." Hmmm. Elite breeding animals. So Harris Ranch finds the biggest, heartiest cow among the thousands of cows in its feedlots, and it clones that cow (as many times as it wants), giving it an endless supply of super-breeders of big, hearty cow DNA.

Seriously, this stuff makes me feel nauseated.

I'm curious about whether others feel the same way, or whether I'm overreacting. After all, cloning is standard practice in horticulture. We drink wine from grape clones. We eat apples from cloned apple trees. Why do I feel differently about milk and meat?

Homemade lara bars

2008-01-03T16:55:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year to all!
While I don't make formal "resolutions," I do have some goals I set for myself. One of my eating goals for the coming year is to craft more of my foods by hand. Another goal is to eat more whole foods and fewer processed foods.

Happily, I have recipes to share with you that achieve both of these ends. The recipes are for homemade "Lara Bars", a type of nutrition bar that uses only whole, natural ingredients. Below are the recipes I've come up with so far, followed by a bit of commentary about nutrition bars.

By the way, I'm indebted to my friend Mary, for directing me to this blog post in which the author reveals her basic technique for making Lara-type bars. I used her technique to come up with a few of my own recipes. Thanks, Mary!

Jill's "Lara bar" recipes:

Basic recipe for 1 bar: 1 tablespoon wet ingredients (such as dates or raisins), 3 tablespoons dry ingredients (such as nuts), 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon spices (optional). (See specific recipes further down.)

Basic technique: Take each of your ingredients and chop them in a food processor. (Make sure to chop the nuts pretty finely; otherwise, they won't incorporate as well.) Put each of your ingredients in separate bowls (see photo). Measure out the ingredients as below and mix them together in a bowl with a spoon or by hand, until you can form a ball. Cut a piece of wax paper (8 inches or so) and place your ball on the wax paper. Use this to help you flatten and shape your ball into a bar- about 1 1/2 inches wide by 4 inches long. Then wrap in saran wrap and store in your cupboard. Voilà!

Here are the recipes I've made- please experiment with the technique and let me know if you come up with other variations!

Apple Pie: 1 T. dates, 1 1/2 T. walnuts, 1 T. dried apples, 2 t. almonds, 1/2 t. raisins, 1/4 t. cinnamon

Ginger Snap: 1 T. dates, 2 T. almonds, 1 T. pecans, 1/4 t. ginger, 1/4 t. cinnamon, 1/16 t. cloves

Oatmeal Raisin: 1 T. raisins, 2 T. oats, 1 T. walnuts, 1/4 t. cinnamon

Cranberry Walnut: 1 T. cranberries, 3 T. walnuts

Nutty Cookie: 1 T. dates, 2 T. walnuts, 1 T. almonds, 1 t. raisins, 1/4 t. cinnamon

Cinnamon Roll: 1 T. dates, 2 T. walnuts, 1 T. almonds, 1/2 T. raisins, 1/2 T. cashews, 1/4 t. cinnamon

Keep in mind that these are the quantities to make 1 bar. If you already know which is your favorite, I'd recommend multiplying the recipe by 16 or so, making a huge ball, spreading it out on wax paper on a jelly roll pan, and then cutting them into bars from there.

I also recommend shopping in a store that has bulk bins for items like almonds and dates, which will definitely save you money.

Good luck and let me know if you have any questions about this recipe.

*****
Here are my thoughts about nutrition bars. I'll admit, I'm a huge fan of them. Clif, Lara, Luna- they're all so delicious, practical, and (relatively speaking) good for you. When choosing a bar, I used to pay attention primarily to the nutritional information. I looked for fiber, high protein, low sugars, and not too much fat. I also looked for vitamins.

Recently though, I began to shy away from the nutritional information and started paying more attention to the ingredient list. I liked the idea of eating nutrition bars whose ingredients I recognized. With my new approach, I started favoring Lara bars over other brands. Lara bars use only whole foods and spices as their ingredients. Indeed, most of their flavors are comprised of five ingredients or fewer. Compare, for instance, the ingredient lists on the following bars (two of my favorites):

"Cherry Pie" Lara Bar: dates, almonds, unsweetened cherries

"Nutz Over Chocolate" Luna Bar: LunaPro (soy rice crisp [soy protein isolate, organic rice flour], organic toasted oats, organic peanuts, organic soy flour, organic soymeal), organic brown rice syrup, organic coating (organic evaporated cane juice, organic palm kernel oil, organic cocoa, organic soy lecithin, organic vanilla), organic peanut butter, vegetable glycerin, inulin (chicory extract), peanut flour, natural flavors, sea salt.

Which one sounds more appealing to you?

Don't get me wrong- I love the taste of some of the Luna and Clif bar varieties. And Clif Bar recently developed a sub-brand, "Nectar," that competes directly with Lara in its insistence on whole, recognizable ingredients. So I think that's a fine choice, too. But better still- if you have the time and energy- would be to make your own. Good luck!

Helping hunger + helping your brain

2007-12-19T18:38:00.000-08:00

If you're an NPR devotee, you've probably already heard about Free Rice, a brilliant and fun website that fights world hunger while helping you improve your mind. Here's the basic scenario: the website presents a vocabulary word, and four possible definitions. If you choose the correct definition, the site donates 20 grains of rice to the U.N.'s World Food Program. You can keep playing (and donating rice) for as long as you want. The program also determines your vocabulary level based on your answers to the questions. (You can go as high as 50... if you reach that and let me know, you'll get a shout-out in my blog!)

I love this site and the overarching concept. It amazes me that I can help fight hunger (albeit in a small way) by doing something I enjoy. Go check it out! (Thanks, Paj, for the tip.)

As a side note, completely unrelated to ethical eating: I suspect that business models like this, where advertisers are willing to pay for site traffic, are heading for a crash. Haven't we all grown pretty much immune to web advertising? I was on the Free Rice site for ten or twenty minutes yesterday and couldn't name a single advertiser who had paid for my traffic. As much as I like the model, since it supports so much free content, I fear that a new, more intrusive wave of advertising is on the horizon.

The House champions ethical eating (for itself, anyway)

2007-12-17T15:14:00.001-08:00

Monday's SF Chronicle featured an article about the House's decision to bring local, sustainable, and organic food into their cafeterias. This more ethical food will be served on compostable plates and eaten with biodegradable silverware (which cries out for a new name... sugarware, anyone?).

This move is a boon for the people who work and eat at the Capitol; they will have access to food that is better for them, better for the environment, and (I suspect) tastier than what they are used to. The switch also benefits local growers and vendors who will help supply Restaurant Associates (the catering contractor) with their sustainable food products.

The article gives Nancy Pelosi most of the credit for the change, since she has spearheaded the "Green the Capitol" initiative. Ironically, Ms. Pelosi is also the person most responsible for the current state of the proposed Farm Bill revision. Many people had high hopes for this year's Farm Bill (which only gets revised every five years). Ever since the 1970's, the Farm Bill has included provisions that provide subsidies and other benefits to corn, soybean and (to a lesser extent) other grain farmers, while excluding most fruit and vegetable growers from those subsidies. These subsidies have been blamed for everything from the current obesity epidemic to the high price of fresh produce relative to, say, a McDonald's hamburger. It seemed that 2007 might finally be the year that the Farm Bill removed those subsidies, or provided increased benefits or support to produce growers (especially organics), or both. After all, the Speaker of the House is a Democrat from California, which grows more than 50% of the nation's fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, even the USDA has acknowledged that fruits and vegetables (taken together) are more important to a healthy diet than whole grains, codifying this belief in their revised food pyramid.

Sadly, Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues did little to change the Farm Bill's status quo. A final bill has not yet been signed (as the House and Senate passed different versions), but the version passed by the House retained the majority of the grain subsidies, while diverting only small amounts of money toward fruits, vegetables, and conservation efforts. Now, I'm sure there were lots of competing interests at stake and that Ms. Pelosi was trying her best to balance those interests. I've read speculation that Pelosi was trying to protect some of the freshman Democrats from the grain-producing states. There are always excuses, always reasons that some important piece of legislation couldn't get passed.

I'm happy for Pelosi, her fellow Representatives, and all the staffers who will get to take advantage of the new cafeteria cuisine. They should keep in mind though, as they bite into their grass fed buffalo medallions with a side of local, organic potatoes and collards, that what they have chosen for themselves, they have denied the common American.

Cancerous red meat!

2007-12-13T15:10:00.000-08:00

A new study has been published that finds a correlation between higher consumption of meat with a higher risk for a number of different cancers. (The study's findings were covered by many major news outlets; here's a link to one of them.) In addition to an increased risk of colon cancer (which was already known), red meat has now been linked to lung, liver, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers as well.

The media seem to love stories like this. With the rise of cancer rates in our society, we desperately need to find somewhere to point our fingers. It's the meat! No, the transfats! No, it's the Aspartame! the Teflon!

If we were to listen to every instance of "{insert food or behavior here} causes cancer" and change all of our behaviors accordingly, we would become fat-free, sugar-free vegan raw foodists.

And while that does sound enticing, I'll take some joy with my meal, thank you very much.

Buried in the study but not covered by the media outlets is the following point:

-The quintile with the highest red-meat intake (approx. 1/4 pound per day) also had the highest BMI (body mass index), the lowest number of servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and the lowest percentage of reported physical activity.

As far as I can tell from reading the study, the researchers did not control for any of these factors. (Smoking, on the other hand, was controlled for in the lung cancer findings.) In other words, although the researchers acknowledge the above characteristics of the biggest meat-eaters, they did not isolate any of these factors as possible contributors.

My answer then, is: everything in moderation. I don't think the meat-eaters among us have to worry too much about these dangerous cancers, any more than we should throw away our non-stick frying pans. Certainly most of us could stand to substitute a hearty lentil soup for a Porterhouse steak every now and then, but I don't think we need to become ascetics. If you can find balance in your life, by eating a variety of foods (including fruits and vegetables) in moderation, exercising (both the body and the mind) regularly, and getting enough sleep, I think you're probably doing as much as you should in order to stay well and happy.

my first raw-staurant

2007-12-06T11:44:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I ate my first meal at a restaurant specializing in raw foods. I was feeling mildly embarrassed not to have tried raw foods before, since there is so much overlap between raw foodism and some of my other lifestyle choices (for example, practicing yoga).

Now, I know I should not judge a restaurant, let alone a food movement, based on one meal alone. So I'll just present the meal and some of the facts about raw foodism, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

In brief, raw foods (also called living foods) are plants, fruits, nuts, and seeds that have not been cooked past 110 or 120 degrees. (Beyond these temperatures, certain digestive enzymes in the foods begin to break down.) People undertake a raw foods diet for a variety of reasons, including health benefits, weight loss, disease cure or prevention, and environmental concerns. Raw food gurus such as David Wolfe also claim that raw foods make you feel more energized.

(Here's a fun page of "before and after" photos of people who went on raw foods diets.)

So back to Cafe Gratitude, site of my raw food lunch. The first thing you should know is that all of the menu items are "affirmations," and our waitress informed us that when we order, we need to state our affirmation. So instead of saying, "I'll have the soup of the day," you say, "I am thriving." No kidding. Or, stated in the language of Cafe Gratitude: I am serious. (Check out their menu to find your favorite example of this.) I think this is a quirk specific to Cafe Gratitude, and not to raw foodism in general.

After considering my options, I went with "I am celebrating," or in layman's terms, the daily special. On that particular day the special consisted of spring rolls, side salad, and my choice of grain. My spring rolls were made of kale wrapped around cucumber, carrot, green pepper, greens, avocado, and dried cranberries. (Yes, the cranberries seemed a little random to me too.) There was no dipping sauce, just the rolls. My side salad was just mixed greens with some balsamic vinaigrette, and the grain on the side was steamed quinoa.

The salad was delicious. Of course, I eat salads all the time, and there is nothing novel about eating a "raw" salad. My quinoa had been steamed but was otherwise untouched. (Question for ye who know: doesn't steaming something sort of cross the line? Is it really "raw" anymore?) My quinoa really yearned for some olive oil, salt, and a squeeze of lemon. I made it taste better by adding some of the vinaigrette. Finally, the spring rolls. While they definitely felt healthy, they also struck me as... incredibly bland. Where in the raw foods rules does it say you can't flavor your meals? Isn't grey sea salt as raw as they come? Perhaps a chopped up chili pepper?

Janaki, my companion at this meal and sometime-raw foodist, informed me that after you eat enough raw food, the flavors of the foods themselves really start to emerge. In other words, the food itself is flavorful enough to stand on its own, without the assistance of spices or condiments.

I can understand the logic of this, although I think if you're aiming for maximum flavor from raw foods and vegetables, you have to find seasonal, locally-grown produce (disqualifying my spring rolls, since neither avocados nor green peppers is grown in NorCal this late in the year).

(Edit: I just returned from the Temescal (Oakland) farmer's market. To my astonishment, they had green peppers. This confirms that I don't understand the growing seasons in California.)

It's also true that this was my first raw food meal. If I were to commit to, say, eating only raw foods for a week, perhaps by the end of the week I'd feel convinced that my food was flavorful. (Would I also be hallucinating by then?)

Here are two things I can say for my raw food meal:
1) I felt full afterwards, and continued to feel full for the next five hours.
2) It must have been very fiber-rich. My toilet can attest to this.

Both of these points lead me to believe that yes, switching from a typical American diet (lots of meat, dairy, and processed foods) to a raw diet will cause significant weight loss. Common sense also dictates this: if I were to eat mostly fruits and vegetables, I would be likely to consume far fewer calories than if I were to eat, say, quarter-pounders with fries.

However, I can't say I envy raw foodists. There are too many things I would miss: grilled onions, cheese, and chocolate truffles, to name a few. I also think most of the pleasure I derive from eating would disappear. I absolutely adore fresh fruits and vegetables, but I would come to love them a lot less if they were all I had to eat, day in and day out. So I think I'll stick to my omnivore's diet, and while I won't become a regular at Cafe Gratitude, I'm certainly not opposed to trying a "raw" meal again in the future.

If you'd like to read a great article about raw foods, including a balanced perspective of the benefits and risks, here's one from The New York Times.

What's in a name? Part 1: "Natural"

2007-11-29T17:58:00.000-08:00

I have an experiment that I'd like you to try. Go to your kitchen, and look for items that have the word "natural" somewhere on their package (preferably the front). Check high and low; in the pantry, refrigerator, and freezer. I'm willing to predict that you'll find a fair number. Next, take each product that calls itself "natural" and read the list of ingredients. Are there any that strike you as... well... unnatural?

I've just tried this experiment here at home. Here are three of the products I found, and my thoughts on each of their claims. (Note that the boldface is my own emphasis.)

1. Barbara's Puffins (Original flavor). Claim: "100% Natural Crunchy Corn Cereal"
Ingredients: Yellow Corn Flour, Corn Bran Flour, Unsulphured Molasses, Oat Flour, Expeller Pressed High Oleic Oil (Canola and/or Sunflower), Salt, Baking Soda, Natural Vitamin E, Vitamin C.

My thoughts: I had to look up what "high oleic oil" was. Basically it comes from rapeseed (canola) or sunflower plants that have been selectively bred to contain higher levels of monounsaturated fats (such as those in olive oil) and lower levels of polyunsaturated and saturated fats. So this is a case of selective breeding, which I admit is natural, and I suppose most people would agree with me, except perhaps creationists. Regarding the Natural Vitamin E: although it may be natural, apparently it is not naturally-occurring in the other cereal ingredients. So Barbara decided to add it to her Puffins to enhance their nutritional profile, even though some scientists question whether isolated vitamins perform as well out of their original context.

2. Brummel & Brown (buttery spread).
Claim: "Made with Natural Yogurt"
Ingredients: Water, Vegetable Oil Blend (Liquid Soybean Oil, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil), Nonfat Yogurt (Cultured Nonfat Milk), Salt, Gelatin, Vegetable Mono and Diglycerides, Soy Lecithin (Potassium Sorbate, Calcium Disodium Edta) used to protect quality, Lactic Acid, Artificial Flavor, Vitamin A (Palmitate), Beta Carotene (for color).

My thoughts: While it may be true that the yogurt component of Brummel & Brown is "natural," this point seems moot, given the predominance of unnatural ingredients in the spread. Partially hydrogenated anything is neither good for us (trans fats! banned in New York restaurants!), nor is it naturally occurring. Soy lecithin, used as a non-spattering agent, must be hydrolyzed enzymatically or fractionated in order to be used in foods. Definitely unnatural. I'm a bit embarrassed that I have this in my fridge.

3. Dr. Praeger's All Natural California Veggie Burgers.
Claim: "All Natural"
Ingredients: Carrots, Onions, String Beans, Soybeans, Zucchini, Oat Bran, Peas, Spinach, Expeller Pressed Canola Oil, Broccoli, Textured Soy Flour, Corn, Oat Fiber, Red Pepper, Arrowroot, Corn Meal, Corn Starch, Garlic, Salt, Parsley, All Natural Vegetable Gum, Black Pepper.

My thoughts: "Vegetable gum" was the only ingredient that stood out to me as possibly a hoax. Trusty Wikipedia tells me that "natural gums are polysaccharides of natural origin... used as thickening agents, gelling agents, emulsifiers, and stabilizers." So I guess vegetable gum, although sort of revolting by name, is natural after all.

By now, you may have begun to sense where I'm headed: the word "natural" on food and beverage packaging is largely unregulated. The USDA, under its Food Safety and Inspection Service, issued a memo in 1982 that explained their definition of "natural" in its use on meat and poultry labels. Here's an excerpt:

"The term natural may be used on labeling for meat and poultry products provided the manufacturer of the products bearing the claim demonstrates that the product does not contain artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient or chemical preservative or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient, and the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed." FSIS' Food Standards and Labeling Division, published Policy Memo 55, dated November 22, 1982

As you can see, there are loopholes galore in this policy, most of which have been exploited in some way or another by manufacturers who are eager to capitalize on growing public hunger for "natural" foods. For instance, many processed foods call themselves "natural" even though they contain high-fructose corn syrup (which is not derived "naturally"). Chicken can be labeled "natural" even if it has been bulked up with a saline solution. Is that really natural? Shouldn't natural mean... occurring in nature?

A year ago, the USDA invited interested parties to share their opinion of how "natural" should be used on food labels; however, as of this writing they have not yet changed the 1982 regulations.

So back to the experiment. Try it, and let me know what you turn up in your kitchen. If you find some unnatural-sounding "natural" foods, let the rest of us know by posting a comment.

If you'd like to read more, CNN has a good article about the war among manufacturers over "natural." Dad, they talk about Tyson. Check it out.

easing into organic foods

2007-11-14T12:23:00.000-08:00

I'm a realist. I know that eating organic foods almost always means spending more money, and that as Americans we are very sensitive to the price of our food. (Did you know that, as a nation, we spend a lower percentage of our income on food than nearly any other industrialized nation?) Most of us are not going to wake up tomorrow and start eating all organic foods, all the time- if for no other reason than the sticker shock. So how best to ease into organic foods? Are there certain foods for which it makes more sense to buy organic than others?

There are several different answers to this question, depending on the reason(s) you wish to go organic. Is it to reduce your chemical (pesticide, fungicide) intake? For better nutrition? For taste? For the environment? I've combed the research, and here's what I've come up with.

Pesticides

The USDA and the FDA regularly test produce (as well as soybeans, dairy, animal products, etc) for pesticide residues. According to their most recent findings (from samples taken between 2003 and 2004), the following fruits and vegetables are the most pesticide-laden among conventionally-grown produce. (The Environmental Working Group has labeled these The Dirty Dozen.)

1. Peaches
2. Apples
3. Sweet Bell Peppers
4. Celery
5. Nectarines
6. Strawberries
7. Cherries
8. Lettuce
9. Grapes - Imported
10. Pears
11. Spinach
12. Potatoes

In these tests, 73% of all fruits and vegetables tested showed detectable pesticide residues. On peaches, the worst of the bunch, pesticides were found on 97% of the samples. Note that the USDA washed and peeled produce such as apples and potatoes before testing them. Imagine how high the levels are for those of us (me) who regularly eat the peels. Yikes!

Fortunately, the news is not all bad; there are some fruits and vegetables that have low levels of residual pesticides, even when grown conventionally. These "cleaner" foods include: onions, avocados, pineapple, mangoes, kiwi, bananas, asparagus, cabbage, and broccoli. For example, only 0.2% of the onions tested showed residual pesticides. I guess there's some relief in that.

(Note: if you're looking to reduce your pesticide-intake level, another good solution is to eat local foods. These foods are much less likely to have been treated with post-harvest pesticides than the food that has to travel 1,500 miles to reach you.)

Health/Nutrition

Aside from the benefits of not ingesting all the chemicals stated above, there are some other nutritional benefits to choosing organic.

Organic produce contains up to 50% more antioxidants (read the findings here)

Organic milk has 50-80% more antioxidants than conventional milk, as well as higher levels of Vitamin E (Ibid)

Organic produce has higher levels of a variety of vitamins and minerals (Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia, The Soil Association of the United Kingdom)

Taste

Consensus on the web seems to be that, in blind taste tests, most organic foods taste about the same as conventional foods. The exceptions seem to be:

Eggs. But often these are not merely "organic" eggs, but cage-free, free-range, life-loving eggs. Still, they seem to beat conventional eggs hands-down.

Peanut butter: here, the main taste difference is between natural (sometimes organic) peanut butter, i.e. roasted peanuts and salt, vs conventional, Skippy-style peanut butter, with the partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats!) and high fructose corn syrup.

In my opinion, if taste is your main reason for going organic, then you'd be better served by choosing local, seasonal foods, whether or not they're organic. Maybe some time soon I'll conduct my own taste test to pit conventional vs. organic foods vs. local foods. If and when that happens, I'll share the results in this blog.

Environmental Impact

If you're concerned about the environment, then you want to give up those foods that do the most harm on a macroeconomic scale (in terms of acres planted, or quantities consumed). In other words, nectarines may be "dirtier" than potatoes, but potatoes cover thousands of times the arable land that nectarines do. Based on this thinking, then your organic choices might include:

1. Organic milk
2. Organic potatoes
3. Organic apples
4. Organic peanut butter
5. Organic beef

(Read one doctor's opinion of why these organic choices are important.)

As a final note, the research seems to agree that if there's one time in your life that it's most important to consume organic foods, it's from birth to age three. This is because carcinogens (including the pesticides applied in conventional agriculture) are up to 10x as potent in babies than in adults. So if you have an infant or toddler, your best way to ease into organic would be to choose organic for your child.

Good luck and let me know how "easing into organic" goes for you!

confusion about eating seasonally

2007-11-10T18:28:00.000-08:00

I went to the farmer's market on Thursday with a list of several vegetables that I needed for a recipe. I know, this is exactly what I said not to do in an earlier post: don't have an agenda when you go to the farmer's market- just let the food speak to you. Well, as with most things in life, this is easier said than done (although I commend Alice Waters for working in that way.)

In my defense, the recipe I had in mind was chicken pot pie, which I consider to be an appropriate seasonal dish in late autumn. I was sure that I'd have no problem finding the vegetables I was after: celeriac (aka celery root), parsnips, and sweet potatoes. These are all root vegetables, and to my thinking, root vegetables are ripe in the late autumn and winter months.

You can imagine my surprise when, instead of finding the root vegetables I desired, I instead encountered fresh, beautiful strawberries. In November! How could this be? I grew up in Virginia, where strawberries have a very definite 4-6 week season, usually lasting from early June to mid-July. I imagined these were hydroponic strawberries (if such a thing exists), or that the wool was being pulled over my eyes in some fashion. First, I tasted a strawberry. Delicious! The very essence of a fruit at the height of its season. So I asked the farmer, (a gentleman from Lucero Organic Farms in Lodi), "How is it that you have fresh strawberries in November?" He told me that in the Central Valley, the strawberry season typically lasts from March through December, or until "the first really bad weather." Amazing!

Knowing which fruits and vegetables are in season is undeniably challenging in 21st century America, when our grocery stores stock the same produce year-round, often failing to mention the geographical origin of that produce. Our best strategy, then, is to have a general sense of what should be in season at what time of year, and then seek information that confirms the produce was not shipped from across the globe. Right now, for instance, the heirloom tomatoes at the Berkeley farmer's market are still seasonal and locally grown, as hard as it is for me to believe that a tomato can be fresh and ripe in November. At my Safeway, on the other hand, the only heirloom tomatoes to be found have two critical pieces of information on the label: "Emeril's" and "Mexico." The first piece tells me that these tomatoes are caught in a large corporate supply chain, which at some point included allowing Emeril Lagasse to brand its tomatoes. The second tells me that those particular tomatoes are neither local nor seasonal in Northern California.

(As a quick aside: in researching the origin of the Emeril's heirloom tomatoes, I couldn't find anything on Emeril's website. I did learn, however, that Emeril was the first celebrity chef to have his food consumed in space. I guess he's not too concerned about the local foods movement!)

In a future post I plan to give a "seasonality chart" of fruits and vegetables in North America, to be used only as a rough guide. The best guide, of course, is the farmers and growers from your region.

P.S. I found the sweet potato at the farmer's market, and I ended up substituting turnips for parsnips. I found some California-grown celeriac at the Berkeley Bowl, but I'm still not sure why none of the growers at the farmer's market had any to sell me. Oh well.

rBST follow-up: Starbucks and Chipotle go hormone-free

2007-11-09T15:08:00.001-08:00

I thought I'd let you know, as a follow-up to an earlier post, that Chipotle has stopped using rBST in all their dairy products. (Chipotle has long been a leader in the fast-food industry in terms of ethical treatment of animals. All of their pork and much of their chicken/beef is naturally raised, without hormones or antibiotics, and with plenty of room to roam or graze.) Read the article about Chipotle's decision.

Starbucks has also caved to consumer demand and committed to going 100% rBST-free in all of its "core dairy products" (which they define as "liquid milk, half and half, whipping cream and egg nog) by the end of 2007. Read Starbucks' letter to Food and Water Watch. (As an aside: who knew that egg nog was a "core dairy product"???)

Hurray for consumer activism!

more ethical-eating books

2007-11-07T14:20:00.001-08:00

In reviewing my posts, I realized that I hadn't mentioned two of the books that have been most influential both in my own eating choices and in my decision to start this blog. You've no doubt heard of both of them, as they were both bestsellers.

The first book, which I absolutely think you should read if you're at all interested in this subject, is The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan.

I read this book last year, and it changed how I think and feel about almost everything I eat. Pollan examines the people and processes behind every step of our food chain. The "four meals" of the title are fast food, organic, locally farmed, and hunted/gathered. Among the information I learned from this book includes:

-Over 25% of the SKUs (items) in a supermarket contain corn or a corn-based derivative

-"Organic" foods do not always deserve a place on the righteousness pedestal (more about this in a future post, I promise!)

-Many small farmers do not use pesticides, antibiotics, or other chemicals, and yet still cannot (or choose not to) be labeled "organic."

Aside from being chock-full of great information, this book is a captivating read. Michael Pollan teaches here in Berkeley- you can learn more about him at his website. If you don't have time to read the book and would prefer just a few of his articles, my favorites can be found here and here.

The second book, which feels a little less like a research paper and more like a good ol' fashioned ethical-food yarn, is Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life by Barbara Kingsolver. She describes a year in which she, her husband, and her two daughters commit to eating only locally grown/raised foods. Her book really made me think about what it means to eat seasonally, and how difficult (but noble) it would be to be a locavore. Her book even includes recipes, and her husband and older daughter contribute to the writing. It's an easy, enjoyable and enlightening read.

And there you have it- few recommendations for Christmas presents or for your next trip to the library.

sustainable foods search engine

2007-11-05T11:56:00.000-08:00

Hey folks!

I just wanted to tell you about the newest feature of my blog- a search engine from the good people at Eat Well Guide and Sustainable Table. Look to the right hand side of the page (at the top of my blog) and you'll see the orange search box where you can search for restaurants, stores and farms in your community that offer sustainable foods. Just enter your zip code and voilà! You'll have a list of places in your neighborhood where you can purchase or eat ethically-grown (or raised) foods. I'm excited because my search turned up a restaurant right near me that I didn't even know about, that apparently offers comfort food from happy cows and pigs. Pretty cool.

I hope you find the search engine as useful as I do. Let me know how you like it!

dairy products demystified

2007-11-01T15:02:00.000-07:00

If you're a label-reader, as I am, then you may have come across the following message on one of your dairy products: "Does not contain the growth hormone rBST." This message is generally followed by an asterisk, with a fine-print footnote that says, "Federal tests have proven that there is no significant difference between rBST treated milk and non-rBST treated milk."

This message strikes me as fairly cryptic. If there is no difference between treated and untreated milk, then why brag about it? But can it be possible that there is no difference? What is rBST, anyway? Should I be avoiding dairy products from rBST-fed cows?

rBST stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin. It's also known as rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone. Basically, it's a synthetic version of a naturally-occurring growth hormone that aids cows in lactation. Cows that are administered a synthetic version are able to lactate longer and thereby produce more milk over their lactation cycle than cows that rely only on the naturally-occurring BST. If you are beginning to think this sounds like a clever way for industrial agriculture to increase their yields, you're onto something. In fact, rBST was developed by Monsanto and sells under the brand name Posilac.

With rBST, as is so often the case with industrial agriculture, steps taken by large corporations to increase yield and productivity on the farm run counter to basic concerns about animal welfare, human health and environmental protection. Let's take these concerns one by one.

Animal Welfare

Cows treated with rBST are up to 50% more likely to develop "lameness" (hoof problems), mastitis (inflamation of the udder), and failure to conceive.

Human Health

Monsanto goes to great lengths to convince consumers that there is no difference between rBST-treated dairy products and untreated products. However, concerned citizens' groups such as The Center for Food Safety point to research that shows that rBST-treated milk demonstrates higher levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Higher levels of IGF are correlated to higher incidence of breast, prostate and colon cancers.

Environmental Concerns

Every time we administer antibiotics, artificial hormones or other chemicals to livestock, residual amounts end up in our water supply. (This concern was one of the leading drivers of the original "organic" movement.)

Other food for thought

No other industrialized country in the world allows the sale of rBST-treated dairy products.

So where does that leave us? Industrial agriculture's (read: Monsanto's) argument is that rBST increases milk yield, which is good for farmers (they make more profits) and good for consumers (the cost of milk is kept lower). I think these claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Monsanto is the entity that stands to profit the most from sales of rBST. When an equation exists that says farmers must increase production so that consumer prices stay low, then the only farmers who stand to gain are the largest farmers, not the small or medium-sized farmers. Finally, if we take costs to human health in consideration, then the true price of rBST-treated dairy products is much higher than the sticker price we face at the grocery stores.

For those of us living in Northern California, it seems that most of our milk is already rBST-free. Indeed, Trader Joe's, Safeway and Whole Foods (my main grocery stores, when I'm not shopping at the farmer's markets) have all banned rBST milk (at least in my region). (Read the Chronicle article here.) But when I'm in other parts of the country and have to decide between milk from treated or untreated cows, I'll gladly spend the extra few cents to keep the artificial hormone out of the cows' diet and thereby out of mine.

shrewdfood books for my birthday

2007-10-31T12:46:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday to me!!!
It is indeed a very happy birthday because my parents (who know me so well!) gave me three delightful-looking books, all about food. Excellent! Two in particular deserve mention here, since they are relevant to my blog:

1. The Art of Simple Food: Notes, Lessons, and Recipes from a Delicious Revolution by Alice Waters. If you've been reading along, you know how I feel about lovely Ms. Waters. I can't wait to read this book! I think the back cover nicely sums up both the philosophy of the book, and the philosophy I'm trying to eat by:

"Eat locally & sustainably
Eat seasonally
Shop at farmers' markets
Plant a garden
Conserve, compost & recycle
Cook simply
Cook together
Eat together
Remember food is precious"

2. Super Natural Cooking: Five Ways To Incorporate Whole and Natural Ingredients into Your Cooking by Heidi Swanson. Heidi is the blogger behind Mighty Foods, one of my favorite food blogs. But little did I know she has a book out- and a delightful-looking book at that. I'll be sure to blog my reviews, after I've read them.

Thanks, Mom and Dad!

Love, your Halloween-baby

saying no to CAFOs

2007-10-08T18:29:00.000-07:00

The cognitive dissonance was too much. In the past few months I've driven I-5 between Los Angeles and San Francisco at least 6 times, and each time I've had to pass two CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations- more commonly known as "factory farms") right along the highway. I look out at the cows, terribly unhappy cows, standing in their own manure, waiting out their days at the corn-filled feed trough, never to graze again on their beloved grass, the food they were meant to eat. And I realize that every day I eat beef that was not grass-finished, I am directly supporting these animals' misery. And yet I have continued to turn a blind eye, ignoring their suffering because it was convenient for me to do so.

Well, no more. As of a week ago I decided to give up factory-farmed beef. When I go to the grocery store, all this decision means is that I'll spend extra (and have to look a bit harder) when shopping for beef. But the other implications of my decision include: no more Trader Joe's carne asada, no more In-N-Out, and no more eating beef of any kind at almost all restaurants. (Soon I hope to publish a list of links to restaurants that offer only grass-finished beef on their menus.)

Needless to say, G thinks I'm crazy (especially for giving up In-N-Out). But what I think is crazy is how we Americans have allowed these farms to develop in the first place, let alone become the dominant system of agriculture in the U.S. And since not even Nancy Pelosi can get a better farm bill passed, I'll vote with my wallet instead.

(Photo by Kent Kessinger and used by permission.)

sustainable food in a corporate cafeteria

2007-09-21T13:24:00.000-07:00

My friend Jon and I were recently discussing how a great business (both in terms of doing well in the world and meeting a market need) would be delivering healthy, sustainably produced, organic meals to local office buildings. Think of the lunch options that most corporate employees face: either an on-site cafeteria (not usually a nexus of sustainable or healthy fare), or the restaurants available in a few-block radius, perhaps offering gyros or subs, sushi or pizza. In short, people with an interest in ethical eating might have few satisfying choices while at work.

It turns out that the folks at Wired have beaten us to the idea and are already treating their employees to just such sustainable food. Chef Phil Ferrato has been cooking breakfast and lunch in the Wired cafeteria for ten years, delivering simple but satisfying meals sourced from local, sustainable ingredients. (Read about one blogger's experience here.) Kudos to Chef Ferrato for implementing this practice, and to the head(s) of Wired for having chosen him for their corporate cafeteria. I'm willing to bet that the reputation of their cafeteria has done wonders for Wired's recruiting efforts. In that case, Wired validates the adage that treating your employees well will reap its own rewards.

alice at the greenmarket

2007-09-19T16:44:00.000-07:00

I've just watched a video at the New York Times website in which the videographer follows Alice Waters around the Union Square Greenmarket as she describes her approach- what she's thinking, how she chooses what she'll buy, what she looks for, and how she brings it all together. You can watch it here. For those who don't know, Alice Waters is a goddess in the food world- especially with regards to the organic/local/sustainable movements. She founded Chez Panisse in Berkeley (my new hometown!) in 1971 to highlight the pleasures of eating seasonal, organic foods at the height of their freshness. My friend and I are planning to make our first visit to Chez Panisse next week... I'll keep you posted about our experience there.

Anyway, what I found most interesting in the video of Alice is when she describes how she chooses which items she'll buy at the market. She makes two points that I'd like to comment on. First, she says, "I never have anything in mind when I come to the market- it's like a blank slate."

I think this approach to food is typical of the best professional chefs and very atypical of the rest of us (for worse, not for better). As an example, how often do you choose a recipe or plan a menu, then list all the ingredients you'll need to buy, and then go to the store or farmer's market (good for you!) to purchase them? I do it all the time- it is my regular process when I know I'll be preparing a meal. This approach works for us either because a) we already know what fruits and vegetables are in season and have planned accordingly, or b) we have grown accustomed to finding whatever we want, whenever we want it. Confess: have you ever tried to eat asparagus outside of the months of April and May? Then you weren't eating seasonally, and your asparagus either came from the other side of the world (lots of fossil fuels involved in shipping it to your town) or from a hothouse (huge energy consumer).

Alice Waters, on the other hand, goes in without preconceptions. Even if she suspects that zucchini will be in season, she waits to see whether there is fresh, delicious-looking zucchini at the market. Perhaps on a given day, the eggplant will look better. This is the advantage of going in without preconceived ideas.

I think we would all do better by ourselves, by our local farmers, and by our environment if we were to aim to make our meal choices based on what is freshest and most readily available at the market, rather than deciding our preferences in advance and requiring our markets to supply them. This approach does require a basic knowledge of what you'll be able to do with the fruits and vegetables that you find- occasionally difficult if you don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of recipes in your head like Ms. Waters does.

Next, Alice says, "I'm looking for food that speaks to me- that I'm looking at it and it's calling to me. It's something about the aliveness of it."

Here too, Alice is onto something. She is in touch with the food- something that many of us have lost. In the U.S., the ingredients in your dinner have been shipped on average 1500 miles to reach you (perhaps less for us lucky Californians, but we're talking averages here). No wonder most tomatoes in the supermarkets taste like watery cardboard. Do you think Alice would ever accept such tomatoes? No way. Now, if we could make ourselves listen to fruits and vegetables and only accept those that really speak to us, we'd enjoy our food more (and probably be healthier eaters). It certainly helps to start by shopping at farmer's markets- I know that much more food speaks to me there than at the local Safeway. But even if you're constrained to shopping at grocery stores, you can still use your senses (literally). Stop and smell the tomatoes. If they don't have that fresh, ripe tomato smell, don't bother to buy them. Ditto peaches. If the peppers are wilted, they will have lost most of their flavor. In short, if the food looks sad, it will make you sad too. Don't buy it. Chances are, it was picked weeks ago, shipped many miles to arrive at your supermarket, and has now been sitting on those shelves countless days, waiting for some sad sap to buy it. Don't be that sap! Better to alter your recipe or menu plan to incorporate fresh, happy ingredients than to use the tired fruits and veggies that your wrote on your grocery list.