this article is a little out of date now, but last month, MSN Money published an article on the financial benefits of cutting meat out of your diet -- both the cheaper costs of plant-based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.
8/02/2007
5/31/2007
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.
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.
5/19/2007
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?
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?
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?
2/01/2007
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.
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.
12/26/2006
supplemental health
my local natural foods grocery store has been sneaking these natural health and nutrition glossies into my grocery bags, which appear to be advertisements for the dietary supplements industry, stamped with the name of my local grocery at the top (i've seen the same ones at other stores, with that shop's logo instead). clearly there's a whole side of natural living that i've never really explored, as i tend to overlook the supplement aisles when i'm doing the grocery shopping.
in fact, i've never given supplements and multi-vitamins much thought, mostly because i aim to meet my nutritional needs through diet, even if that means eating more fruits and vegetables, and foods rich in iron and calcium and whatever else i need. i eat best when i make a conscious effort to incorporate a panoply of nutrient-rich foods into my everyday meals -- unfamiliar vegetables, more leafy greens, new and interesting whole grains like Bhutanese red rice or quinoa -- so i'd rather focus on eating a healthy, nutritious diet than load up on supplemental pills and powders.
still, i can see the appeal in wanting to ensure getting sufficient vitamins or minerals in my diet especially those like Vitamins E, D and B12, which i may not consume enough in the course of my plant-based diet. and it probably is beneficial for me to eat more yogurt with live active cultures, and garlic and red wine -- but the medical benefits of many supplements remain unclear, especially since they aren't regulated by the FDA and therefore aren't required to stand up to any kind of medical testing (not that the FDA has inspired my confidence in the pharmaceutical industry, either).
but what bothers me about these faux nutrition rags is how they emphasize taking a supplement or vitamin as a quick-fix for a variety of ailments and conditions -- from herb extracts for migraine pain to managing holiday stress with fish oil or consuming more probiotics. the sense i get from the medical community is that supplements are most beneficial for people whose health is compromised in some way, and require the additional nutrition to address dietary problems or restricted activities. but like many industries, i imagine the natural health business can't make sufficient profit targeting people who actually need to incorporate supplements into their diets. all of which leaves me feeling suspicious about these slick broadsides in which it's difficult to distinguish the articles from the ads (for an example, check out Natural Living, which is about what I have in mind).
so am i alone in my suspicions, and do most of you who consume a healthy, plant-based, organic or natural diet also include supplements and extracts? which ones do you use and why? i'm curious to hear about other people's views and experiences with dietary and health supplements.
in fact, i've never given supplements and multi-vitamins much thought, mostly because i aim to meet my nutritional needs through diet, even if that means eating more fruits and vegetables, and foods rich in iron and calcium and whatever else i need. i eat best when i make a conscious effort to incorporate a panoply of nutrient-rich foods into my everyday meals -- unfamiliar vegetables, more leafy greens, new and interesting whole grains like Bhutanese red rice or quinoa -- so i'd rather focus on eating a healthy, nutritious diet than load up on supplemental pills and powders.
still, i can see the appeal in wanting to ensure getting sufficient vitamins or minerals in my diet especially those like Vitamins E, D and B12, which i may not consume enough in the course of my plant-based diet. and it probably is beneficial for me to eat more yogurt with live active cultures, and garlic and red wine -- but the medical benefits of many supplements remain unclear, especially since they aren't regulated by the FDA and therefore aren't required to stand up to any kind of medical testing (not that the FDA has inspired my confidence in the pharmaceutical industry, either).
but what bothers me about these faux nutrition rags is how they emphasize taking a supplement or vitamin as a quick-fix for a variety of ailments and conditions -- from herb extracts for migraine pain to managing holiday stress with fish oil or consuming more probiotics. the sense i get from the medical community is that supplements are most beneficial for people whose health is compromised in some way, and require the additional nutrition to address dietary problems or restricted activities. but like many industries, i imagine the natural health business can't make sufficient profit targeting people who actually need to incorporate supplements into their diets. all of which leaves me feeling suspicious about these slick broadsides in which it's difficult to distinguish the articles from the ads (for an example, check out Natural Living, which is about what I have in mind).
so am i alone in my suspicions, and do most of you who consume a healthy, plant-based, organic or natural diet also include supplements and extracts? which ones do you use and why? i'm curious to hear about other people's views and experiences with dietary and health supplements.
12/07/2006
dangerous food
Check out this interview in Salon.com with Michael Pollan on how poor practices in agribusiness contribute to contamination and food safety issues, such as Listeria, E. coli and salmonella:
What's wrong with our food? E. coli at Taco Bell, Listeria in our Thanksgiving turkey, a report of unprecedented contamination in our chicken. Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," explains why.
What's wrong with our food? E. coli at Taco Bell, Listeria in our Thanksgiving turkey, a report of unprecedented contamination in our chicken. Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," explains why.
12/02/2006
sympathy for the veal industry
WBUR Boston produced an interesting short piece on free range veal this week, covering a business venture in New England that helps small farms become profitable by raising free-range, pastured meats.
Of course it's nice to hear about local Boston restaurants buying the naturally-raised veal, and hearing from customers who have been avoiding conventionally farmed veal. But apparently, the veal industry is getting nervous at this potential competition. A spokesperson for the American Veal Association claims that people might get confused as to what actually constitutes "veal" (apparently, veal specifically refers to the male calves of dairy cows fed a milk diet), and wants the USDA to label only the conventional product as "veal."
On further investigation, it turns out that the AVA actually has a website devoted to putting a positive spin on veal farming, a practice which has attracted special vehemence from animal rights activists. I know veal was the first food I ever stopped eating for ethical reasons, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person those campaigns reached. The industry's propaganda arm, The Veal Farm, appears devoted to dispelling the dark image veal has acquired over the years. The faq assures consumers that veal calves are fed a nutritionally balanced diet, live in well-lighted barns, and are actually separated from one another to promote their health.
Still, there are some notable gaps in this rosy portrait -- calves spend their short lives indoors, separated from their mothers (so the cows can get back to pumping out milk) and stand in slotted stalls, crapping themselves. The faq notes that calves are only given "'therapeutic' doses of antibiotics (levels high enough to treat illness)" when necessary, but remains mum on whether or not they are also given low-level doses as a matter of course. Both the Veal Farm website and the AVA's official one primarily emphasize the scientific healthiness of the animals, the quality of veal as a food product, and of course, how to best make money as a veal producer.
I can understand the industry's jitters over the promotion of humanely raised veal, especially given the bad rap of their own product. But it sounds like they'd rather blame the small farms that have opted for sustainable methods, rather than consider why some consumers might prefer the free-range version. Maybe it's time for the veal industry to reconsider its approach to meat production, rather than run to the USDA for protection.
Of course it's nice to hear about local Boston restaurants buying the naturally-raised veal, and hearing from customers who have been avoiding conventionally farmed veal. But apparently, the veal industry is getting nervous at this potential competition. A spokesperson for the American Veal Association claims that people might get confused as to what actually constitutes "veal" (apparently, veal specifically refers to the male calves of dairy cows fed a milk diet), and wants the USDA to label only the conventional product as "veal."
On further investigation, it turns out that the AVA actually has a website devoted to putting a positive spin on veal farming, a practice which has attracted special vehemence from animal rights activists. I know veal was the first food I ever stopped eating for ethical reasons, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person those campaigns reached. The industry's propaganda arm, The Veal Farm, appears devoted to dispelling the dark image veal has acquired over the years. The faq assures consumers that veal calves are fed a nutritionally balanced diet, live in well-lighted barns, and are actually separated from one another to promote their health.
Still, there are some notable gaps in this rosy portrait -- calves spend their short lives indoors, separated from their mothers (so the cows can get back to pumping out milk) and stand in slotted stalls, crapping themselves. The faq notes that calves are only given "'therapeutic' doses of antibiotics (levels high enough to treat illness)" when necessary, but remains mum on whether or not they are also given low-level doses as a matter of course. Both the Veal Farm website and the AVA's official one primarily emphasize the scientific healthiness of the animals, the quality of veal as a food product, and of course, how to best make money as a veal producer.
I can understand the industry's jitters over the promotion of humanely raised veal, especially given the bad rap of their own product. But it sounds like they'd rather blame the small farms that have opted for sustainable methods, rather than consider why some consumers might prefer the free-range version. Maybe it's time for the veal industry to reconsider its approach to meat production, rather than run to the USDA for protection.
9/29/2006
tainted spinach not organic
this tidbit got a bit buried when i mentioned it a few posts back, but apparently the bagged spinach contaminated with e. coli was not organic at all, and has so far been traced solely to conventional spinach. perhaps CNN was just confused when they included photos of Earthbound Organics spinach on the article i linked to, given that it was the same company's conventional line, Natural Selections, responsible for the outbreak.
one company, different but related products, understandable enough... but it strikes me as somewhat irresponsible, given the differences in farming methods for organics (even those produced at a large scale in a plant, as they are at Earthbound Organics) versus conventional produce. seems to me that a reader not paying close attention might mistakenly assume that organic spinach was the culprit, and infer some extra danger from organic products, when by and large, conventional food tends to cause far more health problems.
one company, different but related products, understandable enough... but it strikes me as somewhat irresponsible, given the differences in farming methods for organics (even those produced at a large scale in a plant, as they are at Earthbound Organics) versus conventional produce. seems to me that a reader not paying close attention might mistakenly assume that organic spinach was the culprit, and infer some extra danger from organic products, when by and large, conventional food tends to cause far more health problems.
9/22/2006
seasonal food and cooking tips for the harvest
seasonal food tips: grapes are coming into season in California, as are apples. and of course, it's coming up on squash season in new england.
cooking tip: in one of my favorite, recently acquired cookbooks, Sonoma county chef Michael Chiarello recommends making polenta with milk and a dash of nutmeg (from the Tra Vigne Cookbook). i finally cheated on Marcella Hazan's insistence that polenta cook for 40 minutes, stirring rapidly most of the time, and let it go for more like 20-30 minutes, using 1 cup of coursely ground corn meal to 3 cups liquid (i used 1 cup of raw skim milk and 2 cups water). more milk would probably make it even creamier. it came out a little thicker for eating soft, but was still delicious with crumbled blue cheese, and it fried up perfectly in the pan, cut into either triangular cutlets or narrow, crispy polenta fingers.
cooking tip: in one of my favorite, recently acquired cookbooks, Sonoma county chef Michael Chiarello recommends making polenta with milk and a dash of nutmeg (from the Tra Vigne Cookbook). i finally cheated on Marcella Hazan's insistence that polenta cook for 40 minutes, stirring rapidly most of the time, and let it go for more like 20-30 minutes, using 1 cup of coursely ground corn meal to 3 cups liquid (i used 1 cup of raw skim milk and 2 cups water). more milk would probably make it even creamier. it came out a little thicker for eating soft, but was still delicious with crumbled blue cheese, and it fried up perfectly in the pan, cut into either triangular cutlets or narrow, crispy polenta fingers.
sustainability vs. availability
having lived in places like San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass., i guess i've gotten a bit spoiled by the easy, affordable availability of fresh, organic produce. in Cambridge, there was a weekly seasonal farmer's market right in Central Sq., with stalls from both certified organic farms, and farms using organic and sustainable practices, but not yet certified (or uncertified due to the high costs of the recent FDA organic guidelines). there were also multiple local grocery stores and CSAs offering organic produce at more reasonable prices than the upmarket chains like Whole Foods.
so i guess i forget sometimes that the rest of the country isn't entirely up to speed with this plan -- even supposedly progressive, metropolitan areas like Chicago and L.A. all the news hype about fresh fruits and vegetables just seems undercut by the reality of what food is available to whom. i've temporarily moved down to Long Beach, CA, just south of LA, and stopped in at Wild Oats to stock up on some bulk goods and local produce. the prices make Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco look reasonable -- a worker-owned cooperative that has a local reputation for being on the pricey side, despite a great selection of actual local, sustainable products. and of course, of the organic fruits and vegetables available at Wild Oats, only a minority were actually local (those these were brightly marked and proudly displayed, as if a few local products makes you a sustainable grocer).
unfortunately, most of us in the States appear to be presented with a few non-options when it comes to sustainable food. we can buy overpriced, industrial organic products from large plants in central California (like Earthbound Organics, whose conventional line of spinach, Natural Selections, has drawn national attention for an ongoing spate of e. coli outbreaks), or we can save money but sacrifice flavor and nutrition with the rather wan selection available at most conventional supermarkets. not really an appetizing situation at all.
CSAs and farmer's markets probably offer the best solution where available -- but even farmer's markets may not offer organic food. i'll be checking out Long Beach's downtown farmer's market this afternoon, but from the roster of farms on their website, it's not clear if any use organic or sustainable practices.
so i guess i forget sometimes that the rest of the country isn't entirely up to speed with this plan -- even supposedly progressive, metropolitan areas like Chicago and L.A. all the news hype about fresh fruits and vegetables just seems undercut by the reality of what food is available to whom. i've temporarily moved down to Long Beach, CA, just south of LA, and stopped in at Wild Oats to stock up on some bulk goods and local produce. the prices make Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco look reasonable -- a worker-owned cooperative that has a local reputation for being on the pricey side, despite a great selection of actual local, sustainable products. and of course, of the organic fruits and vegetables available at Wild Oats, only a minority were actually local (those these were brightly marked and proudly displayed, as if a few local products makes you a sustainable grocer).
unfortunately, most of us in the States appear to be presented with a few non-options when it comes to sustainable food. we can buy overpriced, industrial organic products from large plants in central California (like Earthbound Organics, whose conventional line of spinach, Natural Selections, has drawn national attention for an ongoing spate of e. coli outbreaks), or we can save money but sacrifice flavor and nutrition with the rather wan selection available at most conventional supermarkets. not really an appetizing situation at all.
CSAs and farmer's markets probably offer the best solution where available -- but even farmer's markets may not offer organic food. i'll be checking out Long Beach's downtown farmer's market this afternoon, but from the roster of farms on their website, it's not clear if any use organic or sustainable practices.
6/13/2006
more evidence on the food industry's contribution to obesity rates
A recent study in Nature highlights the dangers of trans fats, found in processed and fast foods:
The fatter fat: Fast-food ingredient may pump up your paunch by Helen Pearson
The study suggests that not only are trans fats worse for your health than other fatty acids, but can lead to greater weight gain and pre-diabetic conditions -- even at the same amount of calories. Of course, it's no surprise that processed foods are bad for you, but this research further implicates the entire US food industry in the rising rates of obesity and type II diabetes. Between trans fats and corn syrup, it seems clear that much of what passes for food in most American supermarkets needs to be reexamined -- and rejected in favor of fresh produce, whole grains, and other minimally processed ingredients.
The fatter fat: Fast-food ingredient may pump up your paunch by Helen Pearson
The study suggests that not only are trans fats worse for your health than other fatty acids, but can lead to greater weight gain and pre-diabetic conditions -- even at the same amount of calories. Of course, it's no surprise that processed foods are bad for you, but this research further implicates the entire US food industry in the rising rates of obesity and type II diabetes. Between trans fats and corn syrup, it seems clear that much of what passes for food in most American supermarkets needs to be reexamined -- and rejected in favor of fresh produce, whole grains, and other minimally processed ingredients.
6/05/2006
seasonal fruit -- hurry to the farmer's market!
happily, summer fruits are finally starting to come into season. after a few long months of little but citrus and some aging apples on the shelf, fresh strawberries, cherries, plums and nectarines have emerged at my local markets. last month's strawberry crop assured me a weekly pint of sweet, robustly flavored berries for under $3, and delicate, honey-flavored melons.
over the last two weekends, the cherries have been perfect, round and plump with a nice full flavor, especially the mottled yellow and red Rainiers. the organic ones don't hold up long in the fridge, though, so they need to be eaten quickly! i also found hardy, sweet pluots (plum/apricot blends) and ripe nectarines.
late spring greens have also been a treat -- fresh sorrel makes a wonderfully bright tasting and slightly sour soup, and young collards steam easily and take well to be lightly sauteed afterward. i find serving hearty greens with just a warm bean salad (white beans or cranberry beans and a little olive oil) and some good bread makes a light but satisfying meal.
over the last two weekends, the cherries have been perfect, round and plump with a nice full flavor, especially the mottled yellow and red Rainiers. the organic ones don't hold up long in the fridge, though, so they need to be eaten quickly! i also found hardy, sweet pluots (plum/apricot blends) and ripe nectarines.
late spring greens have also been a treat -- fresh sorrel makes a wonderfully bright tasting and slightly sour soup, and young collards steam easily and take well to be lightly sauteed afterward. i find serving hearty greens with just a warm bean salad (white beans or cranberry beans and a little olive oil) and some good bread makes a light but satisfying meal.
5/19/2006
toxins in breast milk
Another reason to eat a plant-based, organic diet -- according to this article from the Chronicle last week, human breast milk has increasingly high rates of industrial and organic pollutants -- perchlorate, lead, plasticizers, dioxins, PCBs and similarly scary (and carcinogenic) things. This appears especially true for women in the industrialized world, and regulating or banning these substances is the best way to reduce our exposure to them. But according to the article:
Lifestyle choices do make a big difference in body burdens -- longtime vegans are least exposed to many of these chemicals, and reducing household dust, eating organic and using nontoxic cleaning and body-care products can reduce the levels of all kinds of chemicals in the body. But it's the entire lifetime exposure that counts.
5/07/2006
welcome to fresh eggs!
Fresh eggs is a communal blog devoted to sustainable food -- organic and biodynamic farming, traditional and vegetarian cooking, farmer's markets and community supported agriculture, local food, raw food, slow food, and the many other ways people are challenging conventional, centralized agribusiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)