in the news: "agro-ecology"

finally! more support for world-wide sustainable agriculture:

Sustainable Farming Can Feed the World? By Mark Bittman

in the news: faux fiber; HR 875 threatening organic farming?

"Dietary Fibber: Don't be fooled by polydextrose and other fiber additives" -- Slate.com covers the rising popularity of faux-fiber surrogates in foods from yogurt to sugar cereals. Unsurprisingly, food companies are attempting to capitalize on the health benefits associated with dietary fiber (the kind found in fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains), and are using processed fiber-like additives (such as polydextrose and inulin), which the FDA has recently approved in more products. The article's author, Jacob Gershman, points out how food producers are responding to increasing consumer attention to labels, and responding accordingly -- thanks to new FDA regulations, these processed/synthesized fiber additives can be listed as dietary fiber on nutrition labels, despite the lack of clinical research supporting such a claim.

In other news, there has been concern raised in various quarters over House bill HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. HR 875 appears to be a response to recent concerns over food safety and contamination, but critics argue that it will undermine small organic farms and sustainable agriculture. I haven't seen any major news outlets cover the bill yet, and the critics include everyone from small farm advocates to anti-federalist libertarians. A number of different people have pointed out that the husband of the sponsoring Rep, Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), works for Monsanto, and that this bill will benefit big agribusiness at the expense of small farmers. Take a look for yourself, and contact your rep to find out their position.

Industrial models for sustainable food?

Edible San Francisco last week ran an article arguing in favor of eating sustainable pork from the Midwest, rather than pigs raised locally in California ("The Sustainable Pork Smackdown: Midwest vs. Bay Area Five reasons to think hard about that pork on your fork. [part 1]," by Samin Nosrat). Citing improved texture and flavor, and greener, more efficient production, the article lays out some compelling reasons to rethink the mantra that local is always better. Clearly, there are still some kinks to work out in the effort to localize food production in the US, given a large territory with densely populated urban areas dispersed unevenly with regard to the agricultural productivity of the land. Sprawling metropolises have been made possible in inhospitable climates by the history of expanded transportation infrastructure, such as railroads and refrigerated trucks, making possible in turn the massive industrial food system we have today. From the Southwestern desert to the long winters of the Northeast, many major metropolitan areas of the US probably can't sustain themselves on food grown within a 100 mile radius.

But back to pork. The core of Nosrat's argument centers on the particular food system that produces smallscale organical pork. According to Paul Willis of Niman Ranch, for instance, it doesn't make sense to transport large amounts of grain from the Midwest to California, when you can ship less weight in the final meat product in the other direction. In addition, Midwestern sustainable pork benefits from a better developed agricultural infrastructure -- there are more slaughterhouses adapted to humane killing, and an entirely industry for using pig by-products efficiently -- from hides to manure. Finally, Nosrat contends that the quality and flavor of California-raised pork suffers from an "inconsistent diet," compared to pigs fed the corn and soybeans so endemic now to the Midwest.

There are some merits to challenging the local-at-all-costs directive that has become a prominent feature of the sustainable food movement -- while in California, we might be able to eat good food grown locally most of the year, many parts of the country would require a large population shift to eat that way in all seasons. Moreover, the Slow Food movement has advocated the value of local foodways -- the idea that some foods are local specialties and should be enjoyed even if exported, from single-origin chocolates to Parmigiano-Reggiano. Furthermore, in the long run, the issue of emissions and carbon footprints must be solved through alternative energy sources, not only by reducing travel and transit.

But when I hear efficiency emphasized as a key organizing principle in food production, I can't help but be reminded of the logic of mass production and industrialization. The Midwestern hog industry is efficient precisely because it has been developed according to industrial principles -- centralize, standardize, rationalize. Corn and soybeans have been streamlined and modified to produce the most bang for the least fertilizer, and genetically homogenized to minimize diversity. I appreciate the value of using all parts of a slaughtered animal, but I'm skeptical of the idea that pigs can't be raised to taste good under other conditions. When I belonged to a biodynamic CSA in Massachusetts, they raised pigs as part of the basic operations of the farm -- along with vegetables, herbs, flowers, cows, and chickens. The farm advocated integrating animal husbandry and agriculture, relying on a single system of humans, plants, and animals to produce good food. The pigs roamed in a generous pen, rootling in the soil and consuming not table scraps, but the pumpkins and squashes left in the field after harvest.

At the end of the article, Nosrat concedes that perhaps pigs aren't suited to being raised in California, and that we might have to consider eating fewer foods that can't be grown effectively where we live. I tend to agree with this logic, even if I'm hesitant to part with any of my favorite cured pig products. Then again, I have yet to be disappointed by anything made from Range Brother's heritage pigs, such as the phenomenal (but difficult to acquire) salumi from Boccalone. But I think it's important to keep in mind the value of decentralizing food production -- even if it's less efficient. Challenging agribusiness sometimes requires challenging the underlying logic of industrialization in the first place.

eating dangerously

recently, i've seen a number of lists online detailing potentially hazardous foods, from mercury-laden fish to pesticide-coated produce. i suspect that in small quantities, toxins in our food pose only minimal risk to us (at least, as fully-grown adults), though i do wonder about the cumulative effects of being exposed to so many different kinds of chemicals every day, from pesticides to PCBs, bisphenol A, and phthalates. From Sprig.com comes a list of the top "10 Most Dangerous Foods" that you might want to avoid, including farmed salmon, Chilean seabass, and conventionally-grown strawberries. there won't be anything surprising in their report to anyone already dedicated to eating locally grown, seasonal, and organic food -- but it is a good reminder of why it makes sense to avoid industrially-produced meat and produce, and to try to stick to what's in season (which, i'm afraid, means a lot of cabbage, kale, and potatoes all winter long!).

in somewhat more detail, FoodNews.org has published in-depth data on the levels of pesticides found in many common fruits and vegetables, in part to highlight which items you should buy organically if you can't afford to stop buying conventional produce altogether. i would argue, though, that at least much of the year you should be able to find many good fruits and vegetables available locally and in season, particularly at farmer's markets -- which are often pesticide-free if not certified organic. given the price of certifying farms under the USDA's current organic program, many farmers use organic techniques but can't label their produce officially so, which means it's always worth asking the farmer directly if you can.

vegetables in their season are more likely to taste better and not need to travel from as far away, even if that means no fresh tomatoes or asparagus in the winter months. i tend to solve this by stocking up on canned and dried goods, and focusing on dishes made with dried beans, cured meats and fishes, whole grains, and hardy winter vegetables (or fall vegetables that store well). fortunately, the one thing that does come into season this time of year is citrus, so enjoy all the blood oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit!

new trends, old anxieties

fads in health dieting are nothing new, but since i first heard about raw foodism in college, i've noticed how even disparate trends can speak to similar anxieties about food and physical well-being. while i often share the concerns that motivate people to seek out new ways of eating, particularly those that challenge industrialized food, i remain skeptical of any proseltyzing that insists on a narrow eating regimen to promote health. of late, i've noted both the growing interest in fermented foods and the "paleo" diet, which continues the low-carb trend.

part of what i find interesting is how these different dietary practices make similar appeals to a set of related issues, invoking historical or traditional ways of eating over "modern" ones, while insisting on eating habits as the key to health and well-being. frequently, these diets argue that the high incidences of heart disease, cancer, and so forth in industrialized countries are linked to contemporary food practices, and can therefore best be countered by making different alimentary choices. this is the same logic that has fueled health-conscious vegans and vegetarians for decades (and often supported by research -- at least, that eating a lot of vegetables is good for you). food journalist Michael Pollan has added momentum to the local and organic foods movement by advocating a similar position -- "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Pollan defines "food" as what your ancestors from a few generations back would recognize as such, and appeals to "traditional food cultures" for guidelines on what to eat.

these latest trends in fringe eating, then, rely on history (as we remember it) for a roadmap to food-derived health. like many earlier fads (and some established ones), there may be merit lurking within the questionable rhetoric (raw foodists, for example, speciously claim that cooking destroys necessary enzymes, but their diets succeed in increasing consumption of fresh produce, nuts, seeds, and similarly beneficial fresh, organic foods). the fermented food fad, for instance, capitalizes on the benefits of consuming live yeast cultures which help us digest certain foods (which feminist science studies scholar Donna Haraway would call "companion species," organisms that have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with us).

certainly, many different human cultures have been consuming fermented foods for millenia, from Egyptian bread and beer, to sauerkraut, yogurt, and tea. people used to rely on catching wild yeast for their bread to rise (although yeast could be coaxed into inhabiting bakeries and wineries, making it easier to cultivate the right kinds in the right places). myself, i'm generally on board with eating cultured foods, and experimenting with making my own at home (this summer, we turned a head of cabbage into a tasty crock of homemade sauerkraut, and i am seriously curious about making my own sourdough starter). but i remain suspicious of the claims made by some fermented food enthusiasts, for example, that such food can treat autism or singlehandedly fight off infection and disease. there are many factors contributing to the rise of certain ailments in the industrialized world, some of which may be linked to environmental changes, while others may be rooted in different ways of conceptualizing and classifying illness.

the "Paleo" (paleolithic) diet, by contrast, appeals to a different (but related) set of assumptions about eating and health, principally the idea that we can improve our well-being by returning to the foods eaten by hunting and gathering peoples (usually known by anthropologists as foragers). this line of thinking relies on the notion that human bodies evolved to eat certain kinds of foods, presumably those consumed by the earliest hunter-gatherers, and that we should eat similarly to our prehistoric human ancestors to avoid disease and maintain optimum health. there may be some truth to these claims, that our bodies are adapted to process certain kinds of foods, and that we haven't evolved much physically since prehistoric days. however, there are some serious limitations to this approach, which depends on being able to ascertain what, exactly, those early ancestors were eating -- long a subject of debate among biological anthropologists.

the contemporary Paleo diet, however, is premised on a number of assumptions that have already been challenged by anthropologists. first is that modern foraging peoples must live like our early hunting and gathering ancestors. the reality is that no contemporary peoples can be considered "primitive" -- regardless of how they live, all humans today have the same millenia of human history stretching back before them to truly prehistoric times, and their cultures may have changed as much since then as ours (even if they haven't produced similar technologies or "civilization"). the very idea of the "primitive" has been countered by anthropologists as reflecting an evolutionist logic that all humans will ultimately move from more to less civilized, and that Western modernity is the end goal of such cultural evolution.

furthermore, the Paleo diet may say more about how we imagine paleolithic people lived than they actually did. this introduction to the Paleo diet (comparable to others I've seen) suggests that we should eat more lean meat and fish, but avoid grains and dairy. for evidence, the article turns to islanders off the coast of Papua New Guinea (presumably Melanesian peoples like the Trobrianders, famously studied by a father of cultural anthropology, Malinowski), and claims "[t]heir food is the same kind of food that human beings ate during the Paleolithic era, the kind of food our bodies are still made for." ironically, however, most Melanesian islanders are horticulturalists, small-scale farmers who cultivate gardens for their staple foods, including taro and yam, which are then supplemented by fish, vegetables, and occasionally pork. starchy tubers remain the cornerstone of their diet, contrary to the Paleo diet's claims. but moreover, it's quite likely that prehistoric people actually ate wild grains and a lot of wild tubers, and that meat was a rarity, since it's rather difficult to kill an animal with early weapons (especially a large one). finally, there are a few other flaws underpinning this diet. first is that consuming contemporary farmed meat (factory- or pasture-raised) cannot really compare to eating wild game, from differences in animal breed, level of exercise, and and what we feed them. in addition, one of the keys to human evolutionary success has been precisely our adaptability -- our ability to make our environment suit us, and to cultivate it so we can flourish.

whatever may be the benefit (or detriment) of this ecological flourishing, it seems overily hasty to look to (imagined) historical food practices to solve our modern health problems. those problems are rooted in many complex factors, which include the advent of factory farming and commercialized food engineering, but cannot be divorced from how we have transformed and damaged our physical environment, nor can we necessarily distinguish their genesis from conceptual shifts in how we imagine and experience health and illness. food, finally, cannot be reduced to a simple relationship between consumption and promoting health, but must be understood as insperable from a broader set of cultural beliefs and practices that shape our experiences of eating and health.

in the news: action against BPA, curbing rice consumption

this first item is a couple of weeks old now, but the Canadian government appears to be preparing to take action against the use of bisphenol-a (BPA) in plastics. according to The New York Times, Canada's health department is planning to declare BPA toxic, based on research showing its effects as an endocrine disruptor, even at small amounts of exposure:

"Canada Likely to Label Plastic Ingredient 'Toxic'"

hopefully this move, besides encouraging the government to ban BPA in certain products, will also furnish further support for more careful investigation of its safety in the US, where plastics manufacturers have been avidly defending its harmlessness. for more information on BPA in household products, see my past post, "avoiding bisphenol A." the Green Guide also offers a useful overview of which plastic numbers are which resins, and what common products are made with, "Plastic Products at a Glance." of course, trying to reduce plastic consumption will both limit your exposure to toxic plasticizers and reduce non-biodegradable waste.

secondly, the San Francisco Chronicle today reported on how worldwide grain shortages are having an impact on the availability of rice in the US:

"Global rice squeeze hitting U.S. consumers"

apparently, droughts in many rice-growing countries are contributing to the shortage of long-grain rice, and these countries are responding by restricting exports to protect the price of the grain for their own domestic consumption. American wholesalers have responded by limiting sales of rice to consumers and restaurateurs per visit. the article goes on to discuss briefly Raj Patel's work on the "world food system" and the negative effects of global climate change, rising fuel and fertilizer costs, and increasing meat production. Patel describes how growing demand for meat is linked to economic development, reminding us how much more grain is required to raise a pound of meat than to feed a human being. but Westerners should be careful not to blame the developing world for food production excesses we've promoted at home for over 50 years, including factory farming and industrialized agribusiness. instead, we might think about why meat retains its status as desirable and privileged food, and how we can promote (or lobby the government to do so) a more sustainable balance of smallscale, humane meat production alongside decentralized grain and produce farming.

what's most clear, however, is how a confluence of modern food production and transportation practices are engendering an untenable set of conditions, in which increased oil consumption has contributed both to global warming through fossil fuels and poor soil quality through reliance on nitrogen fertilizers. centralized, industrialized food production has provided us both with poor nutrition and an unstable world system, which puts many people in a vulnerable position when a monoculture crop is threatened or transportation costs spike up sharply. it's unfortunate that Western countries have established such an unsustainable model for food production, and it may be that the weaknesses of the system only force us to change our ways under great duress.

in the news: spraying pesticides over urban areas?

according to the San Francisco Chronicle last month, California's agricultural department has been receiving more attention than they expected for a plan to spray urban areas in northern California with a pesticide to prevent a threatening moth infestation ("State plans Bay Area pesticide spraying," Feb. 15, 2008). i don't mean to be alarmist, because the preventative measures appear to be less frightening than the steps the state might take if an infestation takes hold, and i doubt the moth would be any better for organic farming than conventional. the pesticide currently in use primarily contains a moth pheromone, along with other ingredients, but if the moths become widespread, they may be harder to manage without stronger pesticides, or significant crop (and profit) loss.

what concerns me more broadly, however, is the ubiquitousness of toxic chemicals in our everyday environments -- while each compound may not be a huge risk by itself, or in small quantities, the reality is that we are surrounded by many different chemicals (plasticizers, pesticides, preservatives, solvents in household products, etc.), few of which are actively managed or strongly regulated in either their use or their disposal. in the article on the moth pesticide, the Chronicle describes how patients in Santa Cruz county reported multiple symptoms after their neighborhood was sprayed while people were outside and directly exposed to the chemicals. given the high rates of asthma among children today, it's disturbing that officials aren't more concerned about continuing to increase the levels of industrial and other pollutants. additionally, when it comes to the toxic load of chemicals in our environment, educating the public is necessary but not sufficient, as toxicity, health, and environmental exposure are complex issues requiring in-depth study and understanding of the multiple factors involved.

i respect that a widespread pest infestation could present an enormous threat to both small and large farming operations and local food production, but perhaps we need more public involvement and discussion over how best to respond, and in general, greater oversight when it comes to adding potentially dangerous compounds to the physical environment.

trading profit for food

According to a recent article in The New York Times, grain prices, especially wheat, are rising sharply, ostensibly as global demand grows ("A Global Need for Grain That Farms Can’t Fill," March 9, 2008). The Times largely paints a picture in which developing third-world economies are driving increasing demand for greater food production, exacerbated by global consumers acquiring a taste for Western goods like bread. And yet, like so much media coverage, the article invokes some problematic assumptions about food production and population growth, and conveniently minimizes the role of neoliberal economic policies in cultivating monoculture cash crop farming and the global food commodity market, and in encouraging reliance on chemical pesticides and fertilizers over longterm sustainable methods.

A choice quote from the article illustrates the implicit view that the "third world" is out of control, with explosions in population size threatening the supposedly stable use of resources attributed to those in the industrialized world: "[i[n recent years, the world’s developing countries have been growing about 7 percent a year, an unusually rapid rate by historical standards." Interestingly, though, a world population chart by percentage according to continent shows that current population distribution is returning to roughly mirror the distribution prior to the Industrial Revolution -- except, unsurprisingly, in the Americas. Political economist Amartya Sen has suggested that the growth rate in places like Asia and Africa is in fact quite similar to that in Europe following the Industrial Revolution, rather than some out-of-control imbalance.

The articles goes on to quote an agricultural consultant as saying "'Everyone wants to eat like an American on this globe... But if they do, we’re going to need another two or three globes to grow it all.'” Unquestionably, global industrialization is going to require increased food production, but perhaps how Americans eat is also part of the problem.

Lastly, the article completely overlooks the possible negative effects of the so-called "Green Revolution," in which conventional agriculture was brought to developing countries to boost yield and focus on growing certain energy-rich crops, noting only that "[e]xpenses for the diesel fuel used to run tractors and combines and for the fertilizer essential to modern agriculture have soared." But ultimately, relying on chemical fertilizers depletes soil, and pesticides both harm local ecological systems, and appear to reduce plants' own capacities for fighting insects (a number of studies over the past few years have shown that organic produce tends to have higher levels of antioxidants, as reported in New Scientist and on OrganicConsumers.org).

All of which leads me to wonder if it wouldn't be better to promote diversified, decentralized, and sustainable food production methods in the developing world, to meet world food demands without relying on economically and ecologically vulnerable cash crops. By ramping up grain production in the US, we reinforce global trade networks in which staple crops are grown in industrialized nations and exported to poorer ones, while local economies in the developing world remain dependent on luxury cash crops (like coffee, sugar, cotton and bananas) sold to first-world consumers, despite falling profits and high financial risk. Perhaps we should focus instead on developing agricultural self-sufficiency and diversity to address these issues, rather than exacerbate the global trade which capitalizes on profit rather than sustainability -- and possibly prevent repeating the environmental and nutritional disaster wrought by the industrialization of agriculture.

in the news: beef recalls and dairy labeling

• the BBC last week reported on a major beef recall in California:
  
  US orders massive recall of beef
  The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has ordered the recall of 143m lb (64.9m kg) of beef - the largest meat recall in the country's history.
  
  the coverage describes ongoing inhumane treatment of sick cattle at Westland/Hallmark Meat Co, who couldn't stand on their feet at slaughter. the recall was primarily due to the risk posed by eating sick animals (e. coli, salmonella, BSE), but i'm not sure which is more disturbing -- the animal practices that have become normative under factory farming conditions, or the fact that the meat was largely intended for school lunch and other federal nutrition programs. this suggests something about both how we take care of children (particularly poor ones), and how we take care of animals.

• this second headline from the AP is a couple of weeks old now, but describes Monsanto's efforts to restrict labeling dairy that's hormone-free:
  
  Ben & Jerry's in fight over labeling
  
  Monsanto is apparently backing a new farmers' group, American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, which is trying to ban companies like Ben & Jerry's from labeling their products "rBGH-free." notably, rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) is produced by Monsanto and sold to dairy farmers in increase milk production. such hormones are not permitted in organic dairy, but are another means used in conventional factory farming to boost yield. the safety of such hormones remains indeterminate, but this statement gives me pause for thought from from a physician and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago's School of Public Health. certainly neither the USDA nor the FDA are known for protecting consumer and environmental health over the demands of big business.
  
  Monsanto, interestingly, is trying to frame this as a question of protecting farmers' "technology," nicely sidestepping issues of health or humane animal practices. Regardless, this debate is another reminder of the advantages of small-scale organic dairy farming over industrialized agribusiness. You can keep up with the pro-organic side of things over at OrganicConsumers.org, including the latest statement from Oregan Physicians for Social Responsibility.
  

sustainable seafood watch guides

the Monterey Bay Aquarium has released their yearly Seafood Watch guides, including regional guides to consuming seafood in the US, and downloadable pocket-sized ones to print out and take with you. the guides recommend which fish and shellfish are caught and managed sustainably, and which to avoid, in terms of both conservation and health concerns (such as overfishing and mercury levels). the guides include information on which fishing methods are preferable, such as farmed vs. wild caught, environmentally responsible (hook and line, harpooning, trolling) vs. damaging techniques with a lot of bycatch (e.g. dredging, trawling, purse seining).

fish is often touted as a good source of lean protein, low in saturated fat, and fatty fish in particular provide needed omega-3's (like salmon, mackerel, and herring). but of course, between rising levels of mercury, PCBs, and other organic pollutants, and conservation issues, commercial fishing is not a particularly sustainable enterprise. overfishing and marine habitat destruction are particularly damaging consequences of the seafood industry.

for those of us who still want to include seafood in our diets, the guides recommend wild Alaskan salmon, farmed catfish, farmed shellfish, striped bass, and sardines (among others), while discouraging the consumption of farmed salmon, Chilean seabass, Atlantic cod, orange roughy, shark, and imported sturgeon. the recommendations for some fish, like tuna, vary according to where they're caught and by what method -- farmed US sturgeon are fine, but not wild-caught Caspian, tuna as long as it was caught by trolling, but not longline, American farmed tilapia but not Chinese.

like most foods, it requires more than changing consumer habits to rein in an industry and protect environmental resources, but this kind of information is incredibly useful in allowing us to make informed decisions. i've been including more herring and sardines in my diet, as they're high in calcium and omega-3's, low on the food chain, sustainably caught, and really tasty.

last week, i experimented with a bastardized take on the traditional Sicilian pasta con sardine, using diced canned tomatoes, garlic, onions, and fennel seed (rather than the traditional fresh fennel, dried currants, and pignoli). this recipe is more of a cross between the traditional recipe and pasta puttanesca (another favorite with anchovies, olives, and capers).

pasta sauce with tomatoes, sardines, and fennel

1 cup onion, sliced or diced (about one small onion, or 1/2 a large onion)
2 cloves garlic, peeled and minced
1 tsp fennel seed, whole
2 whole sardines, cured and packed in oil (you could use fresh too), lightly rinsed
1 28 oz. can diced organic tomatoes
1-2 tsp olive oil
salt and pepper to taste
fresh-grated parmesan (optional)

heat the oil over medium-high heat, and sautee the onions until translucent. sprinkle on a little sea salt to release the liquid faster, then add the garlic and fennel seeds. sautee for another minute or two, then add the sardines. mashup up the sardines with a wooden spoon -- they won't entirely dissolve but they should disintegrate into smaller pieces throughout the pan. once the sardine pieces have broken up evenly, add the tomatoes. bring to a boil, then turn down the heat and simmer on low for 15-20 minutes. you can mash the tomato chunks with the back of your spoon to break them down faster. when the sauce has reduced somewhat (it should be thicker but not a paste), add salt and freshly ground pepper, and serve over al dente pasta (such as spaghetti, linguine, or fettucine). add grated cheese if desired (i never eat parmesan over puttanesca, but it was good with the sardine sauce).

i actually made this to accompany baked polenta cutlets, as polenta is supposed to complement fish. it was good, but perhaps slightly better with pasta. you could also try making it with crushed tomatoes, or even tomato sauce for a quicker cooking time. the flavor of the fennel really enhances the sardines, but you definitely have to like the taste of cured, briny fish!

cheap corn and the lure of ethanol

yesterday's news drew attention to two new studies in Science on the problems of biofuels as a panacea for the damage wrought by reliance on fossil fuel energy. i don't find it that surprising that burning more biomass isn't a great way to reduce carbon emissions, even if the plants' growth is supposed to offest their greenhouse impact by absorbing CO2. by taking into account the effect of converting existing cropland to biofuel farming, one of the studies found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." both studies suggest that to offset greenhouse gases (GHG), biofuels will have to come from waste products and abandoned agricultural land: "[i]n contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages" (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Fargione et al).

it's unfortunate that even a hardy cover crop like switchgrass might not be as promising a solution as it looks (though the studies do suggest that integrated properly, such perennials could provide efficient biofuel with low carbon impact), but i also take this as a reminder of the negative consequences of enormous federal corn subsidies. corn-based ethanol has been an attractive fuel alternative because it creates a potential new market for all that cheap corn grown in the midwest, which has long outpaced demand. ethanol offers American agribusiness a new market for their undervalued product, while promising the political expedience of claiming to reduce our "dependency on foreign oil." but unless biofuels can be shown actually to reduce carbon emissions, they only people they'll benefit are big corporations, at the expense of the rest of us.

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 Provençal-influenced late summer tomato-eggplant saute:

Tomato Eggplant Saute Provençal

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.

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?