avoiding bisphenol A

in light of ongoing criticism of BPA in food packaging, i conducted a little online snooping around to find out more about which products are likely to contain BPA in the first place. i found a couple of informative articles, including the Green Guide's coverage of BPA in can liners, even organic ones ("The Bisphenol-A Debate: A Suspect Chemical in Plastic Bottles and Cans"), which covers how low doses of the chemical may actually be more harmful as a hormone disruptor than high ones, especially in fetuses and newborns. the article follows up with some tips to minimize BPA exposure, though unfortunately, simply trying to avoid canned goods altogether may not be practical for many of us.

OrganicConsumers.org has reproduced an article from Terrain Magazine, which goes into more depth on the risk of BPA from canned goods, explaining how the polymer is commonly used in the epoxy which lines the insides of cans, in both organic and conventional products ("Consumer Alert: Toxic Hormone-Disrupting Chemical BPA is Leaching from Food Can Liners"). the problem is that acidic foods like tomatoes will cause steel cans to rust over time -- but at the same time, canned tomatoes are far superior to the pale, grainy tomatoes available in the market off-season. foods like beans are less of an issue since they don't require a lining, though some companies may use epoxy in those cans anyhow. This article also offers some useful suggestions for avoiding BPA, like using stainless steel reusable water bottles instead of polycarbonate, keeping #7 plastics out of the dishwasher and microwave (since heat may cause the BPA to leach more quickly), and learning to put up dried beans rather than use canned (i soak large quantities of beans at a time, then cook them and freeze whatever i'm not ready to use, with the added benefit that homemade frozen beans are much firmer and better-tasting than canned, and cost less, too). lastly, the article helpfully links to the full report from the Environmental Working Group (http://ewg.org/reports/bisphenola/execsumm.php).

finally, OrganicGrace.com has compiled a useful list of which organic food companies use BPA in their can liners, and which do not. notably, Trader Joe's is one of the few companies that offers organic canned foods that claims not to use BPA in their liners -- Muir Glen, Eden Foods, Amy's, Bionaturae and others all use BPA-containing epoxy in their cans of tomatoes (although Eden does not use BPA in their organic beans, and Bionaturae also sells excellent strained tomatoes in glass jars). i emailed Muir Glen last week to protest their use of BPA (the company is now owned by General Mills, and has an online contact form), but they were slow to respond. this week, i finally received an emailed response, but they largely overlooked the concerns i raised over growing scientific evidence against BPA, and claimed that the FDA still considers its use in can linings to be safe for food preservation. of course, it's worth noting that the FDA equally considers conventional produce with trace pesticides to be safe for consumption -- so by that logic, why offer an organic product at all? it seems contradictory to make claims about the benefits of organic while using a potentially unsafe chemical in food packaging.

cooking for revolution

the New York Times had a nice piece yesterday on Chez Panisse's Alice Waters and her new cookbook, which reportedly focuses on simplicity, and local, organic ingredients ("Lunch With Alice Waters, Food Revolutionary"). having recently rejoined a CSA in California, i've been thinking a lot myself about how i prefer to cook around good fresh ingredients than get caught up with complicated multi-step concoctions. since my first box of produce arrived last week, i've made a simple leek and cauliflower soup with vegetable stock (which i make in batches and keep on hand in the freezer), a very basic tomato and butter sauce with two pounds of perfect plum tomatoes (according to Marcella Hazan's recipe in The Classic Italian Cookbook), a white bean soup showcasing my partner's homemade beef stock (and not much else, though it did take an afternoon to prepare, and a trip to Prather Ranch Meat Co. for their phenomenal organic, pasture raised beef), and this week, a tomato eggplant saute, with a little red wine and olives, ladled over semi-pearled farro. i'm sure i could invest time in more complicated recipes and serve more sophisticated meals, and when i invite company for dinner, maybe i'll plan something more involved. but the produce from our new CSA has been reminding us of why local and seasonal makes such a marked difference. the tomatoes have been deep red and nearly bursting, with intense, sweet flavor. the eggplant had a tenderness and delicate flavor that buoyed the saute it went into, the sweet peppers have been crisp and sweet and abundant, and the salad lettuces have been fresh and leafy and needed just a little olive oil and fleur-de-sel salt to become a lovely side dish. even the cauliflower tasted good.

anyhow, the article about Ms. Waters reiterates the increasingly visible connections between the food system, individual health, and the quality of what we eat everyday. it also touches on the Slow Food movement and the ideas behind "eco-gastronomy," though they haven't taken hold in the US as much as in Europe. the article also discusses shopping at a local Manhattan "greenmarket," and preparing a deceptively simple late summer lunch with locally procured ingredients. the menu is alluring, but in the end, the article trails off somewhat ineffectively, echoing its portrayal of Ms. Waters as an influential figure in a growing movement against the conventional food system whose methods are quaintly and sadly out of step with the times, and therefore doomed to make little lasting impact.

still, articles like this indicate a growing attention in the mainstream media to holistic concerns over food production and consumption, and how everyday shopping, cooking and eating habits cannot be disconnected from the broader system under which food is grown, processed and distributed. though as a fact this connection may seem obvious enough, the centralization of food production has largely cut most of us off from how and where our food is produced, so that for most of us, food comes from a supermarket, not a field. as a reminder, the US Farm Bill is up for renewal this fall (which, as Professor Kenneth Dahlberg notes, is really a food bill, not just a farm bill, "Proposed Farm Bill Falls Short on Food Security," Detroit Free Press, September 20, 2007). this, among other things, is that bill that determines farm subsidies, which have buoyed overproduction of corn for many years, depressing its market price and thereby inducing the food industry to create all kinds of products to act as vehicles for its cheap excesses of corn -- high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn-fed beef and chicken, etc. unfortunately, it may already be too late to contact your representatives to reform the farm bill, but it's an issue well worth following anyhow (for Californians, OrganicConsumers.org had a campaign for taking action).

and lastly, because this blog is about food from production to consumption, here's my recipe for a Proven├žal-influenced late summer tomato-eggplant saute:

Tomato Eggplant Saute Proven├žal

1 cup onions or shallots, diced fine
2-3 garlic cloves, peeled and minced
1 large or 2 medium eggplants, diced into small cubes
2 cups fresh or canned tomatoes, diced
1-2 teaspoons olive oil
red wine (about 1/2 cup)
1 tsp dried thyme
1/2 tsp dried tarragon
1/2 tsp dried marjoram
1 tsp dried basil or a few tbsp fresh, rinsed and torn
10-12 pitted black olives such as kalamata, sliced lengthwise

In a large seasoned iron skillet or heavy-bottomed sauce pan, heat the olive oil on medium-high and add the onions or shallots. Sprinkle with a little salt to release the juices, and stir frequently, or lower the heat and cover to sweat. When the onions are translucent (about five minutes), add the garlic, and saute until pale gold. Then add the eggplant and more oil if necessary, to coat. Add a little more salt, and cover, stirring occasionally, until the eggplant release their liquid and start to brown, about 5-10 minutes. Stir in the tomatoes and red wine, and increase the heat, bringing the pan to a rapid simmer. Add in the dried herbs, crumbling between thumb and forefinger as you do so. Cook uncovered for about five minutes, until the liquid has reduced, and then cover and simmer on lower heat another 5-10 minutes, until the eggplant are tender. Stir in the olives, and add salt and fresh cracked pepper to taste. Serve over pasta, farro or other whole grain, and top with grated parmesan.


in the news -- plastic still bad; pastured poultry taking off

two recent articles in Salon.com track the dangers of plastics:

  • "Two words: Bad plastic
    Scientists now fear a chemical used in baby bottles and CDs, food cans and dental sealants, can disrupt fetal development and even lead to obesity.
    " -- Salon covers the ongoing controversy over the use and dangers of bisphenol A, an endocrine disruptor found in polycarbonate plastics that just may be more dangerous at low levels of exposure, especially for developing fetuses. yet another reason to avoid plastic water bottles and other light, clear plastics (unfortunately, bisphenol A is also used in the plastic linings of canned goods).

  • "Plastic bags are killing us
    The most ubiquitous consumer item on Earth, the lowly plastic bag is an environmental scourge like none other, sapping the life out of our oceans and thwarting our attempts to recycle it.
    " -- Salon reminds us that plastic bags just create permanent litter that won't biodegrade, and that tends to blow away into lakes and oceans, only to break down into smaller pieces of plastic that can re-enter the ecosystem when eaten by marine animals. very few plastic bags get recycled, and those that do aren't remade into more plastic bags, but into further products which can't be reclyced. the best solution is to bring your own bag when shopping (canvas bags are great for groceries, but i also have a small nylon bag that can be stuffed into an integral pouch and fits perfectly into my purse), and when you do take plastic, save the bags and return them to the store (most supermarkets will take plastic bags and recycle them, whereas most curbside recycling will not).

    of course, better consumer behavior alone can't change the habits of clerks that put your items into plastic bags by default -- i'd like more stores to provide bags only on request, since half the time, the cashier has already bagged my purchases by the time i remember that i really don't want yet another plastic bag. as usual, it would be nice if the bag-production industry would take more responsibility for the lifetime of their products, instead of relying on consumer concern alone to solve environmental crises.

  • in more upbeat news, the SF Chronicle reported last week about the growing demand for pastured chicken, as met by Soul Food Farm in Northern California:

  • "Raising poultry the new-old way" -- it's nice to read about chicken farmers using Joel Salatin's method of rotational grazing to maintain both land and animal health (a project Michael Pollan discusses at length in The Omnivore's Dilemma). the Chronicle appears to have started a regular series called "Food conscious" that looks promising overall.
  • 9/12/2007

    choosing dairy when all the labels look the same

    the surging popularity of organics has made it difficult in recent years to make good choices about organic and "free range" products based on supermarket labels. meat and dairy labeled "organic" used to suggest animal husbandry practices based on humane and sustainable principles -- such as giving animals enough space and comfort to live low-stress, healthy lives and thereby minimizing the need for things like antiobiotics. at the same time, organic produce indicated certification by an independent body (or local statute), and usually meant small-scale production free of pesticides or genetic modification. while the federal codification of the organic label has ensured that certain standards are maintained, plenty of industrial-scale production now masquerades as organic (meeting the basic federal requirements but otherwise operating on a conventional agribusiness model), while small farmers using sustainable methods often can't afford to get their products certified.

    as a result, many former advocates of organic food now emphasize local over organic, highlighting the importance of growing seasonal and heirloom varieties bred for flavor and nutrition rather than long-distance durability. for foodies in places like California, or summer in the Northeast, this can be an appealing (if pricey) trend. but no model of local, small-scale farming has yet to offer a practical vision of feeding a country of 300 million without resorting to industrial methods. local and organic food is still the privilege of the few with the time and budget to worry about the provenance of their meals.

    at the sime time, a profusion of new labels have appeared in the marketplace which might have some utility, but may also just cloud the situation more. "Fair trade" indicates certification of ethical and equitable trading practices by an independent, international labelling organization (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International; TransFair in the US), while "Certified Humane" ensures the approval of animal welfare groups like the Humane Society and the ASPCA. There's also "Free farmed," which indicates animal products raised in accordance with the American Humane Association's standards. On the other hand, many generic claims still carry little meaning or specificity, like "free range," "natural," "hormone free," "cage-free," and others, and even when these terms are defined by the USDA, they are often difficult to ensure or enforce (the Consumers Union publishes an excellent online label guide, at Eco-labels.org, that defines and evaluates a plethora of common labels).

    when it comes to dairy products, however, an advocacy organization called the Cornucopia Institute has done some of the investigation and research for you, surveying 68 organic dairy labels in the US, and evaluating their farming practices. unsurprisingly, companies like Horizon Organic fared poorly, given their reputation as an industrial-scale dairy outfit that has commandeered the "organic" label to profit from growing public concern over conventional agriculture, while very small-scale local dairies in places like Vermont and Wisconsin were rated highly. but that doesn't mean that the milk from these model farms is likely to be available in your local market, which just furthers the dilemma -- how can you buy and support good farming practices when the best products are so difficult to locate?

    the guide is worth reading over to see whether or not any of the dairies listed sell products in your area. i know from my own experience that Straus Family Creamery in Marin County, CA offers some of the best organic milk, yogurt, butter and ice cream i've ever tasted, and i buy their half-gallon glass jars of skim milk weekly (and then return the bottle for re-use). and i was glad to see a good rating for Stonyfield Farm, whose yogurt singles are among my favorites, not to mention their excellent organic frozen yogurt -- despite having been bought out by French company Danone. but i didn't know, for example, that Organic Valley is actually a cooperatively-owned company whose milk is produced by a pool of small-scale organic dairy farmers, and who maintain high standards in terms of animal health and access to pasture. Clover Storenetta also surprised me with a strong score, which i previously knew as a local California dairy that produces conventional milk alongside an organic line. i had assumed they were comparable to brands like Alta Dena, which i've seen in supermarkets and convenience stores in Southern California. but Clover Storenetta actually consists of four modestly sized family-owned farms, while Alta Dena is owned by Dean (like Horizon) and is largely comprised by giant industrial farms that have been minimally converted to organic standards.

    overall, private-label dairy products scored very low, largely because most chain markets refused to participate in the study (like Wild Oats, Trader Joe's and Wal-mart). Whole Foods' label 365 organic, however, did well, and claims to source their dairy products regionally from small family farmers rather than large industrial ones. most other store brands, however, refused to release information about the sources of their dairy products, so the Cornucopia Institute turned to industry sources and records, which suggest most of these labels procure their dairy from factory-farm "organic" operations. similarly, most large-scale organic brands were unwilling to provide any information on their farming practices, and most rely on factory-farm methods that often subvert the value of "organic," while edging out smaller farmers with lower prices. the scorecard recommends avoiding brands like Horizon, Aurora, Alta Dena, Back to Nature, Organic Cow, Stremicks, and Wholesome Valley (many of whom also supply the private-labels with factory-farmed dairy products).

    the Cornucopia scorecard is well worth reading through -- despite (or rather, due to) the popularity of organics, it's often a challenge to find reliable information behind food production practices, especially when product labels tell such alluring stories of open skies and green meadows, regardless of how the animals are actually raised. i also recommend their charts on who owns organic, which map out most major organic labels and show which are independent (very few) and which are owned by major food corporations. supporting small farms and independent brands is one more way to challenge the centralization of American food production, and demand more localized and sustainable practices.


    in the news -- honeybee virus found; food additives and kids

    "Virus Is Seen as Suspect in Death of Honeybees"
    • the Times today reported on the recent findings published in Science suggesting a link between the current bee epidemic of Colony Collapse Disorder, and a virus (Israeli acute paralysis virus). Colony Collapse Disorder has proved a disturbing and intractable trend among American honeybees, where entire hives disappear when the work bees die far from home and can't return. given the number of major crops pollinated by small populations of honeybees (who are often carted around from site to site to make up for the paucity of honeybees in many parts of the country), losing hives on such a large scale poses a significant threat to American food production. this latest breakthrough at least offers some hope of figuring out what's ailing them, so further research can hone in on possible solutions.
    "Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds"
    • on a less cheerful note, the Times also covered a study on the correlation between food additives, like colorings and the preservative sodium benzoate, and hyperactivity (including ADHD) in children, published in The Lancet. while it shouldn't come as a surprise that artificial additives in food aren't healthy, or that such effects might be amplified in children, i found chilling the conformist attitude of a pediatric pharmacologist at Mass General -- Dr. Spencer, in response to the study, was quoted as saying:

      “Is it powerful enough that you want to ostracize your kid? It is very socially impacting if children can’t eat the things that their friends do.”

      putting aside the awkward use of "socially impacting," i find it deeply disturbing to suggest that we should continue to allow children to eat foods with artificial colors and preservatives in foods that have been demonstrated to have a negative effect on their health and ability to learn, just because we don't want individual kids to feel singled out! of course, we could prevent ostracizing kids by simply not making such foods available, but i think the risk of being the health-food-kid is outweighed by the negative effects of processed foods. i find the attitude baffling that it would be better to conform to dominant, damaging food norms rather than challenge them and risk standing out because of those choices.


    going veg: the consumerist slant

    this article is a little out of date now, but last month, MSN Money published an article on the financial benefits of cutting meat out of your diet -- both the cheaper costs of plant-based proteins at the grocery store (like lentils, brown rice, and tofu), and the longterm savings in healthcare:

    Go vegetarian to save money

    "With this kind of savings, you could afford to buy a few ounces of bluefoot mushrooms -- or an occasional organic, grass-fed, beef tenderloin at $26.99 a pound."

    in some ways, i appreciate the underlying sentiment, as it challenges the idea of vegetarianism as something that requires buying fancy fake meat products at upscale natural foods stores, and highlights the well-documented health benefits of a plant-based diet. on the other hand, though, it reinforces the sentiment that food should be cheap, reassuring readers that it's fine to buy large amounts of cheap conventional produce if organic seems too dear. in explaining the costs that underlie the high price of organic foods, the article focuses on the smaller scale of sustainable farming, in contrast to the alleged efficiency of industrial food production. but this just serves to downplay the signficant costs of certification under the current USDA organic guidelines, and further obscures the very real impact of industrial agriculture on the environment -- a cost that is passed on to taxpayers in other ways.

    ultimately, i suspect most people who limit or forgo meat in their diets are prioritizing values other than frugality (like their own health, and that of the environment), but it's worth considering the financial angle, particularly in terms of making nutritious and nourishing foods available to people at all income levels.


    death by sensationalism: revisiting perceptions of vegan diets

    a few weeks ago, a friend of mine linked to an article about a vegan couple charged with the murder of their infant son, Crown Shakur. i spent some time reading the news coverage of this story, and the entire case struck me as deeply strange. the couple's son died of extreme malnourishment, and was severely emaciated by the time he was brought to the hospital. the parents do appear to have been vegans, and to have fed their baby apple juice and soy milk.

    however, this story has been taken up in the media (and by many people) to illustrate the dangers of radical lifestyles gone wrong, proof that some vegans are so blinded by their slavish commitment to forgoing animal products that they might endanger or even kill their own children.

    while i'm not surprised to see the story interpreted this way, i think it suggests more about popular views of veganism (and similarly politicized diets) -- supposedly practiced by people whose good sense is easily overwhelmed by their radical convictions. last week's Op-Ed in the Times just reinforced this line of reasoning. Nina Planck, in "Death by Veganism," argues that the Shakur case should "prompt frank discussion about nutrition," and as a former vegan herself, came to the enlightened conclusion that "a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible." she then makes a currently popular move, referencing "indigenous cuisines" to support her views. never mind that there are societies that consume no dairy, and very little meat (many parts of east Asia come to mind, and it should always be remembered that meat is often expensive and considered a luxury, while our neolithic ancestors most likely ate a lot of roots, nuts, and other gathered foods, only occasionally supplemented by meat). moreover, "traditional" diets cannot necessarily be considered a fail-safe guide to healthy eating. of course, Planck's argument that animals provide the best quality of protein leaves out the most pertinent fact -- human meat offers the most easily digestible protein of all!

    cannibalism aside, i don't disagree that meatless diets require more attention to certain nutritional issues (though conversely, one might point out that the Standard American Diet doesn't include sufficient vitamins, minerals, and fiber, or fruits and vegetables). in a consumer society saturated with cheap food products, eating healthy already requires careful attention to labels and meals, whether it's avoiding transfat and high fructose corn syrup, or including enough whole grains and vegetables, and attending to organic and sustainable modes of food production.

    but ultimately, this discussion is irrelevant to the death of Crown Shakur. back to the actual news coverage, it appears that the infant died because he was not fed enough of anything -- according not to the defense, but to the prosecutors. Shakur's parents were not convicted of killing their child by veganism, but by severe malnourishment. nothing about this case suggests that vegan diets themselves be scrutinized for dietary insufficiency -- in fact, the American Dietary Association endorses vegan and vegetarian diets, saying "[w]ell-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence." of course, it may be more challenging to plan a healthy vegan diet for small children, but any more so than trying to address the issue of childhood obesity? sensationalism aside, thoughtful veganism still appears to be a far healthier choice than the diets most Americans consume -- and feed to their children.


    plastic world

    a scary heads-up -- this article documents how literally tons of plastic debris are accumulating in the world's oceans, disintegrating but not biodegrading, and leaching organic pollutants into the environments, and our food chain. the article further suggests some of the many possible links between the various chemicals given off by plastics and rampant health problems in the US such as cancer and diabetes.

    in some ways, this news isn't surprising -- we've known for many years that plastic does not biodegrade, and at the same time, it's become increasingly ubiquitous to postindustrial living. i'm trying to imagine how i would eliminate disposable plastic from my life, and realizing that even after the most basic trip to the grocery store, i'd return home with shrink-wrapped cheese (made with carcinogen-laden PVC), plastic containers of yogurt (#5, polypropylene, notoriously difficult to recycle partly because there's no aftermarket), plastic bagged organic lettuce (so much for the value of organic!), and plastic inserts in cereal, oatmeal and cracker boxes -- even if i remember to bring my reusable cloth bag. shopping at a farmer's market or buying from a CSA helps with plastic-free produce, but it remains endemic to the way most of us obtain our food (to say nothing of eating out -- how many restaurants still use styrofoam containers for take-out and doggie-bags?).

    while i'm feeling renewed motivation to cut down on plastic all together, consumer action really isn't a sufficient solution. while many cities now offer curbside recycling (although notably, Chicago's program is still appallingly flawed and ineffective), it's unclear how much plastic makes it to a recycling plant -- numbers 1 and 2 are apparently the easiest to recycle, again, because there's a market for the recycled material, but plenty more is shipped overseas, handsorted, and unless easily recyclable, probably tossed (often creating hazardous working conditions and environmental contamination in the process). a longterm solution requires substantial government regulation (and business self-regulation) to ensure that producers, not consumers, take responsibility for the lifecycle of their goods -- using nontoxic materials that can be endlessly reused without causing further ecological damage or health problems. while we can all contribute to reducing demand for plastics as retail consumers, we can probably be most effective as political constituents putting pressure on businesses and legislators to make more far-reaching changes.

    but ultimately, i keep asking myself -- if plastics don't biodegrade, why do we still conceive of plastic products as disposable?

    dodging the issue: is it worthwhile to challenge factory-farming practices behind fast-food?

    an interesting news tidbit from earlier this week -- apparently the Animal Legal Defense Fund is suing Farmer John®, the brand of hotdogs sold at LA's Dodger Stadium. the ALDF also published their letter encouraging the stadium to stop using the brand for their famous "Dodger Dogs."

    the lawsuit alleges that Corcporc, Farmer John®'s pork supplier in Tulare County, is in violation of California state code which requires that livestock kept in confinement have access to some kind of exercise space, and furthermore that Farmer John® misrepresents the conditions under which the meat for its products is produced.

    while i'm always glad to see attention drawn to the appalling living conditions of animals on factory farms, i think this approach raises some interesting questions. to a large degree, i think it's probably an effective strategy to promote awareness of how popular foods and meat products are really produced, and to try to reform or improve existing farms and regulations, rather than mass convert Americans to give up on meat entirely (an outcome that might be healthier for both Americans and our environment, but is unlikely to take hold anytime soon).

    on the other hand, even if the sows at Corcporc had a little more breathing space, would that really begin to address the problems inherent in mass meat production? as long as fast-food is such a bloated, oversized and profitable industry, it seems unlikely that small-scale, pasture-based models of raising animals will prevail. so is it worthwhile to try to promote more humane models for industrial animal husbandry?


    nutrition for thought

    Michael Pollan has published another thoughtful piece on food and health in The New York Times magazine section ("Unhappy Meals," January 28, 2007), exploring the ideology of "nutritionism" in eating, as opposed to nutrition (or just plain old food). He attempts to dismantle some popular scientific and journalistic approaches to food -- that foods can be broken down into their constitutive parts, that nutrients and micronutrients can be isolated, and that we can build a healthy diet around these isolated nutrients, divorced from their contexts in food and cuisine. He briefly muses on the American tendency to emphasize eating for health rather than for pleasure or socializing: "I’ll leave the premise alone for now, except to point out that it is not shared by all cultures and that the experience of these other cultures suggests that, paradoxically, viewing food as being about things other than bodily health — like pleasure, say, or socializing — makes people no less healthy; indeed, there’s some reason to believe that it may make them more healthy."

    Pollan is unquestionably one of the sanest voices on the topic of food consumption and production in American journalism today, and his recent book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, should be required reading for anyone who buys or eats food in the United States. But ultimately, he prescribes the same narrowly decontextualized approach to healthier eating which plagues American food practices -- change your individual behavior to combat what are really broad social issues. Pollan sums up his advice neatly as "[e]at food. Not too much. Mostly plants," with the emphasis on whole foods, farmer's markets, cooking your own meals, and refraining from overeating. Sound recommendations, sure, but as his article catalogues, the corporate food industry largely determines what kind of foods are available to most Americans (in the supermarket and even at the farmer's market), and has put heavy pressure on the federal government to curb health guidelines that might interfere with corporate profit.

    A more effective national food policy would require rethinking and restructuring food production and distribution, and examining the situational contexts in which people consume food. Why do people so often forgo cooking at home for fast food? Why do we buy fortified breakfast cereals and processed foods rather than unrefined ingredients? Time is clearly one factor for many people, who already juggle many responsibilities and obligations (work, family, exercise, school, personal relationships, to say nothing of other hobbies, interests or leisure). Collectively, how can we make time in daily life for the cooking and grocery shopping necessary for better eating, given the constraints and restraints of modern social existence? And lastly, how can we decentralize and diversify food production to make more healthy, whole foods available locally, while minimizing negative impact on the environment? Until we address these questions at the level of social and public policy, nutritionism and chronic disease will continue facing off in research labs and media outlets everywhere.