Necessary Steps

Since my last post, I have moved across the country, started a new job, and had a baby. With all of that going on, perhaps it’s no surprise that I have yet to find a new farm from which to buy ethical, sustainably-raised meat. Instead, we’ve been relying on Whole Foods. Through their signs and labels, Whole Foods provides its customers with information about the farming and production practices involved with their meat and, supposedly, has a higher standard than most grocery stores. Up until now, I’ve been mostly taking it on faith, and the word of the employees at the meat counter, that buying meat at Whole Foods is a better choice for the animals, environment, and workers than shopping elsewhere. Now it’s time to dig a little deeper.

Animal welfare is one of my main concerns when it comes to meat. I’d like to think that the animals I eat have only one bad day. That’s far from the case in conventional meat production. Efficiency seems to be the hallmark of the conventional approach. Part of upping efficiency is increasing the number of animals that can be kept in any given operation and strictly controlling the environment in which the animals live.

Because chicken, pigs, and cows do not typically live indoors in highly-concentrated groups, conventional farmers have to take many extra measures to keep the animals alive until they make slaughter weight. For example, when chickens are kept in crowded pens, they peck at each other, which can lead to injury and reduce their value. The solution in conventional farming is to remove the beaks of the chickens. Similarly, when pigs are confined and crowded, they express their natural desire to chew on things by nipping at their neighbors’ tails. To discourage this behavior, farmers routinely cut off the pigs’ tails, leaving only a sensitive nub. That makes it much more painful to be chewed on, causing the pigs to fight back and dissuading the pigs from chewing on each other. The idea that causing animals more pain is a better solution that simply enabling animals to behave naturally highlights the unfortunate priorities of our food system.

Similar to the animals, our environment suffers from conventional farming practices both from the monoculture cropping systems that generate animal feed and the animal operations themselves. When animals are raised in more natural conditions, where they are able to express their natural behaviors, eat the foods they evolved to consume, and contribute to the farm ecosystem, the animals and the environment benefit. A wholly integrated farm is the ideal, but there are many ways in which the lives of farm animals can be improved and are worth supporting.

The Whole Story

Whole Foods uses a tiered rating system for its chicken, pork, and beef. The ratings actually come from the Global Animal Partnership (GAP), which evaluates farms based on long lists of animal-specific metrics. The ratings go from 1 to 5+, and they are color-coded from orange to yellow to green. Higher ratings represent farms that are more animal-centered, meaning that animals are more able to express their natural behaviors. In general, Steps 1 – 3 apply to farms that are more conventional in nature (i.e. animals in enclosed, controlled environments) with many enhancements for the well-being of the animals. Steps 4 – 5+ are for farms that are pasture-centered, meaning that the animals live mostly outdoors in more appropriate environments. All of the chicken, pork, and beef sold at Whole Foods has received at least a Step 1 rating. 

Even farms with the lowest rating, Step 1, have taken significant steps to improve the welfare of their animals over conventional practice. Many common physical modifications, including tail docking (pigs) and debeaking (chickens), are not allowed even in Step 1 farms. By Step 5, no physical alterations are allowed.

Another major consideration when evaluating farms is the concentration of animals. Crowded pens and crammed cages are not allowed. At Step 1, all animals must be able to move about. Chickens must have enough space to flap their wings without touching one another, while pigs and cows must have enough space to exercise, lie down, and move freely. Cows must also spend at least 2/3 of their lives on pasture.

Antibiotics and growth hormones are also disallowed at any step, and animals can never be fed by-products of other animals. Antibiotics, particularly medications that are intended to cure diseases in humans, are frequently used in conventional animal production. In fact, their use is on the rise despite the FDA advising a ramp down. Such pervasive usage is leading to drug-resistant strains of diseases that we used to be able to treat with antibiotics. For more on this important topic, read these recent articles from Mother Jones and Scientific American. Because Whole Foods only carries GAP-rated chicken, pork, or beef, it all comes from animals raised without hormones or antibiotics. 



There are many other factors that go into the ratings evaluation, which can be found on the Global Animal Partnership website as well as in pamphlets available at Whole Foods. Meat that carries a GAP rating is clearly better in terms of animal welfare than that found at most grocery stores. I definitely feel better about buying even a Step 1 product than buying conventional meat, but I would much prefer to buy Step 3 through 5+ meat whenever possible. At the Whole Foods where I shop, there are a lot of beef products with ratings of 4 and 5. Much of it comes from Eel River Ranch in California, a Step 4 organic* farm that raises cows on pasture. There is also Step 3 and 4 chicken from Mary’s Chickens. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen over the past few months, the selection of pig products is currently limited to Step 1. While we still purchase these products, we now eat a bit more chicken and beef than pork. Some packaged products at Whole Foods are also GAP-rated, including some deli meats from Applegate Farms, evol frozen meals, and Krave jerky. You can see the full list of GAP-rated products on their website.

Although we still plan to join a farm CSA for our meat, if one is available in our new hometown, it is still good to know that we can pick up meat from our local Whole Foods without abandoning our commitment to ethical animal products. Plus, we are using our food dollars to support the GAP ratings program, which promotes better industry practices, and to show Whole Foods that we value ethically-sourced meat and the information that enables us to identify it. All that adds up to a whole lot of piece of mind.

* - A farm’s designation as certified organic is not evaluated as part of the Global Animal Partnership rating system. They are complimentary but quite different sets of metrics.

The Future Frontier of Agricultural Science

Last December, I was honored to attend the Japanese-American Frontiers of Science symposium in Tokyo, Japan. Frontiers of Science symposia (FoS) are organized by the U.S. National Academies of Science, the Kavli Institute, and leading science organizations from around the world – in my case, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The symposia are designed to bring together young researchers from a wide variety of fields, which offers scientists the opportunity to learn the state of the art work being done in other areas and network across the typical boundaries of expertise. In my case, I was the only planetary scientist at a symposium of about 70 participants, and the range of topics included the mathematics and applications of origami, development of a new standard by which we define the kilogram, and the human microbiome. Although jam packed, the sessions were very stimulating and generated great discussions both during and outside of the sessions.

"Any time you do something new in origami, you have to make a bunny."

A little microbiome humor to lighten the mood.

The session I was most looking forward to was Climate Change and Food Security. I hoped the session would focus on agricultural methods that enhance crop resiliency and require fewer resources. The talks began with an overview of the many ways climate change will continue to challenge our abilities to grow food, as well as the growing concern over so-called “hidden hunger”, the widespread lack of nutritious food so severe that it impairs normal growth and function of human beings. An estimated 2 billion people suffer from malnutrition, and poor nutrition is responsible for 45% of deaths of children under 5 [1][2]. The speakers all acknowledged that it is lack of nutrition that will be the next big problem facing humanity. However (and somewhat inexplicably), they then focused on methods of producing “a bigger pile of corn”. That’s right, the session was all about the successes of biotechnology at developing more productive crop varieties.

Quantity vs. Quality

After the talks, the participants asked many critical questions about the biotech approach to food security such as its economic viability in poor countries and issues with soil degradation and water usage. What bothered me the most was that the speakers said nutrition is, and will continue to be, our biggest challenge, but the biotech advances they described do not address nutrition at all. In fact, in the US, most genetically-modified crops (especially corn and soy) are made into food additives and sweeteners, like corn syrup and soy lecithin, rather than actual food. In poorer parts of the world, as one of the speakers pointed out, even industrial-grade corn is used as a food – served as something like porridge. While still largely devoid of nutrition, at least corn does supply edible calories for the very poor.

After the session, I approached two of the speakers* to ask more about the challenges of nourishing the world. The first person I talked to often works in Africa and knew a lot about the particular hardships for poor farmers. She agreed that a good approach to creating nutrition security (rather than caloric security) would be to focus on crops that are inherently nutritious. Whether through changes in agricultural methods, selective breeding, or gene splicing between species, creating more resilient nutritious crops – think lentils and kale rather than corn and soy - must be part of the solution. Unfortunately, the speaker could not think of any researchers currently working on enhancing the yields or the sustainability of nutritious food.

She also pointed out a potential flaw in my analysis of the caloric needs of different countries, which was based on population studies by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In that study, the caloric needs of a population are determined by age and sex demographics. However, occupation is not taken into account. Farmers, day laborers, or women who trek tens of miles a day for clean drinking water are afforded the same caloric requirement as a typical person, but their actual needs are much higher. Even a person getting 1800 calories a day may be nearly starving because of the exertion required for their daily life. One of the findings of my study was that almost all countries, even those with 30-50% of their populations being classified as food insecure, actually had enough calories to feed everyone. However, based on this new information, it seems likely that income inequality means the poor not only have less access to those calories, they also need more than the FAO has estimated because of the hardships of poverty. In that case, having more available calories could, hypothetically, reduce food insecurity, but only if the impoverished people within the country can actually get more food. And, of course, none of this addresses the availability of nutritious food.

A Culture of Condescension

My discussions with the next speaker were much more troubling. When I broached the subject of growing or breeding more nutritious crop varieties for use in poor countries, he said it wouldn’t be effective because the people in those countries wouldn’t eat the food. They have a culture of non-nutritious foods, he said, using rice as an example. Better to engineer staple crops like corn and rice to have more nutrients and let the poor eat what they like.

I found this attitude, frankly, appalling. The idea that poor people can’t recognize the value of a diverse, nutritious diet is insulting. Assuming that impoverished people in southeast Asia eat a diet of mostly rice because that is their culture neglects the role that poverty has played in restricting diet diversity over time. While the diversity of traditional diets is something I will need to learn more about, it seems unlikely that the nutrient deficiencies currently causing widespread blindness and stunted growth throughout poor populations have been present throughout their histories. In any case, people living in extreme poverty deserve better than to have their nutrition slipped into their rice like parents of a stubborn toddler hiding vegetables in their kid’s pasta sauce.

Another Seat at the Table

The issue of population growth came up many times throughout the session and side conversations throughout the symposium. Because population is increasing, proponents of biotechnology will say that we need to produce more calories even if they are not nutritious. Otherwise, people will starve. There are two problems with this approach. First, as long as the population continues to increase, food production will always have to increase to keep pace. Maybe we can keep squeezing our resources and reducing the nutritional quality of our food to produce more calories, but this seems like a race to the bottom. The other problem is that people need more than calories. It sounds unconscionable to let people starve, but is it any more ethical to give people just enough calories to survive knowing that the lack of vitamin A, for example, will lead to blindness and death? In my opinion, there is no point in creating more calories if we cannot produce nutritious calories because lack of either is too often a death sentence.

In addition to researching nutrition-based approaches to food insecurity, slowing population growth is critical to a sustainable food future. As one speaker pointed out, the advances of biotechnology are not expected to outpace the pressures of population growth on the food supply – not by a long shot. Luckily, the methods for slowing population growth are known. Lift people out of poverty, and they have far fewer children. This is especially true for women because impoverished women have so few opportunities. Becoming a wife and mother is their only value within a society. When women are educated and have access to jobs and careers outside the home, they have a source of economic stability that gives them more freedom to choose when and whether to have children, and they usually choose to have fewer children overall.

Nourishing the world is a harder and more critical long-term problem then feeding the world, but that is the actual problem facing humanity. Producing more calories that are not nutritious or raising crops in ways that degrade or deplete vital resources are false solutions. We need to focus on developing sustainable agricultural practices that produce more nutritious food. We also need to empower the poor, especially women, to both slow population growth and reduce the extra caloric burdens of poverty. This is the true frontier of science, a worldwide humanitarian effort, and a moral imperative.


*Although the names of the speakers are available on the internet, I’m withholding them here because some of what I describe stemmed from side conversations rather than their talks. It’s possible that I misunderstood their comments or that they would have provided more context in a different setting. In any case, I have tried to describe our interactions as best as I can remember them.

[1] http://www.gainhealth.org/knowledge-centre/fast-facts-malnutrition/

[2] http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

From farm to table.

It seems that spring has finally arrived in Maryland. We’ve had a whole weekend filled with sunshine and crisp, fresh air. There are daffodils popping up along the creek, little green buds on all of the trees, and a constant buzz of little creatures (human and otherwise) venturing back outside. To celebrate this lovely change of events, we are dusting off the grill and making the one food we have rarely had the chance to eat over the past few years: hamburgers.

It may sound strange – hamburgers are one of the most popular foods in the United States – but eating only ethically-sourced meat means avoiding hamburgers almost everywhere. I recall eating them quite regularly back in college, though, both at restaurants and grilled in my backyard. Hamburgers were the mainstay of nearly all get-togethers: the Superbowl, July 4th, or even just a weekend poker party. I remember those times fondly because, above all, they were celebrations of friendships. They certainly weren’t celebrations of food, however. I bought my burger patties frozen, in a big tan box from Costco. I never thought much about how the meat had come to be in its mechanically-pressed, totally uniform state, and I had no idea how the cows were treated in the process.

Today’s event will be quite different. It will be just me and my little family, celebrating life, hard work, and of course, food.

After the 2013 Ancestral Health Symposium, a fellow attendee who lives nearby contacted me about joining a cowpool. I’d never participated in a cowpool before, but I jumped at the chance. Here’s how it works: A group of people pool money to purchase a half or whole steer from a farmer. Typically, the price per pound is lower than if you bought comparable meat at a store or farmers market, and you can find a farmer who uses practices you are comfortable supporting. Depending on the farmer, you may even be able to visit the farm and your particular cow while it is being raised.

Our cow was grass-fed, raised on pasture at Legacy Manor Farm in northwest Maryland. Although the farm isn’t run with quite the level of management of Polyface Farms (i.e. maximizing integration between the different animals and the land), the animals are raised in a natural, low-stress environment without hormones or antibiotics. Our cowpool, which was broken down into 8 shares, purchased a half-steer. A few months later, our intrepid cowpool leader, Steve, met up with our farmer, Kathy, at the midway point between Silver Spring and the farm to pick up our half steer.

Buying a whole or half animal is quite a different experience than buying cuts of meat at the deli counter. Our meat came, quite literally, as a side of beef, which weighed in at 347 lbs. Although we could have had it broken down before delivery), we instead turned to the experts at The Urban Butcher, an artisan butcher shop located in downtown Silver Spring. These guys were amazing. They allowed Steve to attend and photograph the butchering process. Rather than issuing them a list of cuts, Steve simply let the butchers make the decisions about how best to break down our half steer. Due to their diligence and expertise, only 10 of the 347 lbs were unused, and we got some rather uncommon steaks and roasts in addition to T-bones, ribs, ground beef, and the like.

In early February, all the members of our cowpool met up in order to distribute our shares of meat. It was a lovely day, and our hosts greeted us with wine, a warm fire in their backyard pit, and over 300 lbs of vacuum-sealed and labeled beef. Before we started divvying up the meat, Steve gave a toast. He spoke of the gratitude he felt for this food, which was enhanced by his participation and the awareness it gave him of all the time and effort that goes into raising and butchering a steer. We were able to acknowledge and appreciate the life lost in bringing this food to our table, and the efforts of our farmer and butchers to honor that life.

We then picked numbers out of a hat, and took turns selecting cuts of meat until each share-holder had their allotted amount. My family took home about 40 lbs of grass-fed beef, bones, and tallow. The cuts we selected included: neck roasts, oso bucco, ground beef, kabob, “man” steak, top sirloin roast, short ribs, sirloin tip roast, T-bone steak, picanha steak, clod, and flank steak. We paid $210 for our share, which comes out to about $5 per pound, although excluding the fat and bones brings it up to about $7 per pound.

Over the ensuing months, we’ve been slowly working our way through the meat. Everything we’ve tried has been delicious, in part because we treat each of these meals as a special occasion. Even today, grilling hamburgers on the patio for no one but ourselves, it is a celebration. The ground beef has a heftier consistency, with larger chunks of bright red meat and bright white fat, than you would find in a grocery store. We prepare it simply, alongside grilled portabellas, asparagus, and romaine hearts. We pour some wine. Even our toddler can sense that this is a special meal. It’s not just the amazing taste of the food, it’s also the fact that this meal took effort, that makes it so satisfying. This is a hamburger I will remember.

A Farmroots Effort.

Between my full-time job as a planetary scientist and caring for my one-year-old, it’s pretty tough to keep up with current events. However, a few recent headlines caught my attention and got me thinking about the best way to approach food system change.

Kid-tested, MOM-approved.

I’ve seen a few signs for MOM's Organic Market, a local grocery chain here in Maryland, but didn’t know much about them. MOM's is now making headlines because its founder and CEO, Scott Nash, has instituted a policy banning products that market to children. Anything with a cartoon character on the package, regardless of how wholesome it may appear to be, is being replaced. After his own toddler insisted they purchase a cereal she had never eaten solely because Clifford was on the box, he decided to make a change. According to Scott’s blog:

“Advertising in and of itself is a rather shady game. I think most of it is deliberately misleading and, at best, beside the point - focusing more on creating shallow emotional attachments to a product rather than pointing out the merits of the product. And unfortunately, it works. This manipulation process begins early when corporations target children. It’s irresponsible and, in my opinion, unethical. Let children be children and at least wait until they’re earning their own money before engaging them in the age of consumerism.”

Marketing to children is an especially contentious issue because scientific studies have shown that kids younger than 7 or 8 lack the capacity to tell truth from fiction [1]. They can’t critically analyze a health claim or see a marketing ploy for what it is. And while, in the end, the responsibility lies with the parent, using cartoon characters in advertising seems like a purposeful attempt to sabotage a parent’s good intentions. Unfortunately, regulating marketing to children has met with a lot of push-back, both from the food industry and from people who are concerned about their personal choices being further restricted. In contrast, MOM's approach offers shoppers a choice. If you would prefer to avoid marketing gimmicks and the potential for meltdowns in the cereal aisle, you can shop at MOM's.

Genetically-modified ordinances.

Recently, Whole Foods grocery stores announced that, by 2018, all of their suppliers will be required to label any genetically modified ingredients in products sold at Whole Foods. According to their website, the decision to require GMO labeling was based on widespread customer demand.

This is not a shocking choice; Whole Foods is all about organic food and sustainable agriculture. Or, at least, that is the niche in which they operate. Regardless, it’s a step in the right direction. Despite widespread popularity, it’s been incredibly difficult to pass labeling laws and other restrictions on GMOs at the state and federal level. But, as with MOM's, it seems like change at the retail level is much more feasible.

This new policy builds upon Whole Foods’ existing relationship with the Non-GMO Project, an organization that verifies whether food products contain any genetically modified ingredients. You can easily avoid GMOs by buying organic, but the Non-GMO Project labels provide extra certainty when it comes to processed or packaged foods. And Whole Foods’ new labeling rules will make it even easier to identify GM ingredients. Labeling is important because it allows consumers to show their preferences and exert market pressure.

Fair Food with Integrity.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) has successfully convinced Chipotle to sign their Fair Food Initiative, assuring that the farm workers who picked the tomatoes served at Chipotle were treated humanely. Until this change, Chipotle’s Food With Integrity program had included concern for the growing conditions of their produce and the treatment of their animals, but issues of farmworker exploitation were notably absent.

The CIW has blazed a trail in improving the conditions for America’s farm workers. And they did so by targeting retailers at the top of the food chain, who can afford to pay a little extra (1 penny per pound) for their tomatoes. Chipotle now joins Burger King, Taco Bell, and McDonald’s in helping make sure farm workers have some basic protections, like access to shade during their workday. Their “Food With Integrity” message means a lot more when it includes the people who keep the food system running.

Customers making change.

In the past, I’ve pointed out the increasing concentration within the food industry. Through mergers and acquisitions, from production to distribution, most food products are owned and sold by only a few companies. Smaller, independent companies are free to make their own policies and offer consumers a meaningful choice. It may take a bit more effort or money to shop at these retailers (although Chipotle has become quite prolific!), but it really is critical that we support diversity in the marketplace.

In all three of these cases, retailers made changes that have been nearly impossible to achieve through governmental regulation, and they did so mainly in response to the desires of their customers. Perhaps this sort of “farmroots effort” is a better approach to changing to the food system than regulation at the state or federal level. Or, at least, it’s an approach we should take in tandem.

With this in mind, I tried to think of some other retailer initiatives that consumers could get behind. One idea is to push Trader Joe’s to institute a similar GMO labeling requirement. TJs already rebrands the majority of their products, so they have ultimate control over what goes on the package. And Trader Joe’s recently signed the Fair Food Initiative, which shows that they are willing to consider policy changes when their customer base is vocal and persistent.

Along the lines of marketing, I would definitely like to see retailers pull products with dubious health claims. I recently came across several sugar-laden cereals that claimed to be healthy because they included whole grains and were high in Calcium and Vitamin D. Careful label-reading revealed that those nutrients actually came from the milk that they expect you to eat along with the cereal. Dubious health claims are often purposefully misleading and set people up to make poor decisions. Somehow these claims do not fall under the category of false advertising, but they are clearly intended to be misinterpreted.

Are these things you would fight for? What else could we do?

There are many ways we can advocate for change within the food system. The simplest is to change what we eat. We can also vote for change, both at the polls and through regular communication with our elected officials. These recent events have revealed an additional option – working with retailers to promote change at the point of purchase. From GMO labeling to food marketing to farm worker rights, we can make a difference.


Related posts:
On the CIW - People for the Ethical Treatment of People
On Chipotle's Food With Integrity program - Eat at Steve's
On concentration in the food industry - To organic and beyond!

[1] I've heard this factoid several times, such as in this NYT article that gave an overview of recent studies on marketing to children. Unfortunately, I have been unable to identify the actual study. More information about marketing to children can be found via the CDC.

Taking stock: What to do with a whole chicken.

We’ve really enjoyed being a part of the meat CSA program at North Mountain Pastures over the past year. We receive one box each month, with a variety of beef, pork, and chicken. We’ve had the chance to try several kinds of steaks, roasts, and ribs that we’d never had before. We also had a traditional Oktoberfest sausage that was especially delicious with their homemade kimchi. Although the selection is mostly a surprise, one thing we always get is a whole chicken. At first, we were really intimidated. But, over time, we have learned just how easy it can be to cook a whole chicken, and how much food we can get from this one bird. For about $30, we can make dinner for two people for three nights and almost 2 quarts of chicken stock to freeze for later. Here’s how we do it.

Slow-cooker chicken.

Our first task is to cook the whole chicken. We use a slow-cooker, one of the world's greatest inventions for busy people who still want to eat well. We typically eat the legs and thighs one night and the breasts the other night, along with a couple of vegetable side dishes. There is usually enough meat left over to incorporate into a third meal as well. A little leftover chicken makes a great addition to a veggie-laden salad or even a stir-fry.

Ingredients:

• A whole chicken (4-5 pounds)
• Approx. 2 cups vegetable or chicken stock
• To taste – pepper, salt, rosemary, sage, and thyme

1. Place chicken in slow cooker.
2. Add left-over chicken stock or vegetable stock, enough to cover about ½ the bird (at least enough to enter the cavity of the bird).
3. Salt and pepper the outside of the chicken. You can also add about a teaspoon each of rosemary, sage, and/or thyme.
4. Cook for 4 hours on high or 6-7 hours on low.
5. Remove chicken from slow cooker, and cut off the meat to use for dinner. Place the carcass in a large sealable bag or container, and store it in the refrigerator for a few days or freeze it until you are ready to make the stock.

Vaguely Mediterranean chicken. 

Last time we made a whole chicken, I raided the pantry and fridge to make up this easy third dinner. This recipe can be easily modified to include any other veggies you may have lying around.

Ingredients:

• Olive oil, if needed
• Leftover chicken
• 1 can of diced tomatoes or 2 large tomatoes, chopped
• 1 bunch lacinato kale
• 1/2 tsp each, Italian seasoning and garlic powder
• Rice

1. Rinse and coarsely chop kale. Cut chicken into bite-size pieces and dice tomatoes, if necessary. If you are making rice on the stovetop, start it now.
2. Add oil to the pan, and warm over medium-high heat. The amount of oil will depend on the kind of pan you have; you shouldn’t need more than a tablespoon.
3. Give the oil a minute or so to heat up, and then add the kale. Saute the kale for several minutes, stirring occasionally.
4. Add the tomatoes, chicken, and spices. Reduce the heat to low and heat through. If you are making instant/frozen rice, start it now.
5. Once the chicken is nice and warm (about 10-15 min.), serve over rice.
Stocking up.

We mostly follow the chicken stock recipe in Deborah Krasner’s book, Good Meat, which is a wonderful resource for the ethical meat eater. We store our stock in the freezer in food-grade mason jars (like these) that we purchased at a local hardware store. When we're ready to use the stock, we place a jar in a bowl of water in the fridge overnight. Also, we add salt only when cooking with the stock, not in its preparation.

Ingredients:

• A whole chicken carcass
• 1 carrot, cut into chunks
• 1 stalk of celery, cut in half
• 1 onion
• 1 whole clove or 1/4 tsp ground cloves
• 5 whole peppercorns
• 1 bay leaf

1. Combine all ingredients in a large pot. Add enough water to cover the ingredients (Krasner suggests at least 5 inches over the top).
2. Heat on medium-high heat, uncovered, until the stock begins to boil.
3. Reduce heat to the lowest setting at which you can maintain a simmer.
4. Let the stock simmer for 3-4 hours, until it is golden and fragrant. As it cooks, skim any foam the forms on the surface.
5. Use a strainer or large slotted spoon to collect all the solids; smoosh any veggies to get a bit more flavor and then discard.
6. Place the pot in the sink, surrounded by ice, for about half an hour (or just put in the fridge).
7. When cool, pour the stock into jars or other freezer-safe containers. Chill the stock in the fridge overnight. Then, if you plan to store it for more than a few days, move it to the freezer.

Will vote for food.

With election day almost upon us, we have heard the candidates express their views on the economy, abortion, and foreign policy. They have described how skyrocketing health care costs, and our future health care needs, will impact our society and the national debt. And yet, at no point has either candidate discussed the cost of subsidizing grain production or the impact of cheap processed food on our worsening health. Clearly, these important food issues are still not part of the national political conversation. Although the food movement has made great strides in expanding access to sustainable, nutritious, ethical food, it is equally important to have a political voice.

According to Ballotpedia, there is only one food-related ballot measure being considered in this election: California’s Prop 37, which requires that foods containing genetically-modified ingredients be labeled as such. The biotech companies have poured millions of dollars into defeating this important piece of legislation. They have filled the airwaves of California with negative and misleading ads that paint label advocates as ignorant fear-mongers. A label, they say, will give the impression that there is something to fear about GMOs and may turn away consumers.

In my opinion, there is reason for concern when it comes to GMOs. They are somehow considered different enough from their unmodified counterparts to warrant patents, yet similar enough to not require any additional testing or regulation. GMOs are banned in over 60 countries throughout the world, and even some countries accepting US food aid have declined our donations when the food is genetically-modified.

It is often argued that genetically modifying foods like corn and soybeans is no different from selective breeding of animals to promote certain traits. But GMOs are fundamentally different from anything we have created in the past. They incorporate genetic material from completely different species and deliver this material by encasing it in the cells of viruses (because viruses are so good at bypassing the natural defenses of the original genetic material). Furthermore, GM seeds are not developed in order to create food with more desirable traits. Rather, it enables companies to patent seeds, requiring farmers to buy new seed each season, and to create a better market for their chemicals. For example, the most prolific GMOs are designed to survive application of Round-Up, which is conveniently sold by the same company that owns the rights to the GM seed: Monsanto.

Genetically modified foods are different, both in form and function, but are they dangerous? Frankly, we don’t know because testing is not required by the FDA and the fact that the seeds are patented raises legal issues when it comes to studying them. Adding more regulation or oversight has also proved challenging because the GM seed companies (like Monsanto) are able to exert so much power over the regulatory process. The Citizens United decision, which protects the rights of corporations to make campaign contributions, has only exacerbated the problem.

Another (and perhaps better) way to force biotech companies to prove the safety of their product, both for consumers and the environment, is for consumers to demand it by choosing not to buy GMOs without further study. And really, isn’t that how the free market system is supposed to work? If consumers are afraid of GMOs, it should be the responsibility of the company selling them to prove that GMOs are safe, effective, and better than the competition.

Consumers cannot exert market pressure if they have no way to assess the differences between products. Give people information about what is in their food, and let them decide whether or not to buy it. Empowering consumers in this way allows us more freedom of choice, requires fewer regulations, and gives us the ability to control our food future.

I hope that, come Tuesday, Californian’s will vote yes on Prop 37 and that this fight will inspire similar legislation in other states. Moreover, I hope it will spur those of us in the food movement to take more political action. We need to call our senators and representatives to show our support for food-related legislation. We need to vote in the primaries for our elected officials so we can get more candidates with an interest in food issues onto the ballot. We must take every opportunity to ask candidates and elected officials about their views on farming, nutrition, and the environment so they know they have both the obligation and the support to fight for a better food future. We have to speak up and speak out, and eventually, we will win.

Want more information? Check out these organizations and articles:

Right to Know
Just Label It

Michael Pollan in The New York Times
Frances Moore-Lappe in the Huffington Post
Farmers for truth in labeling
Civil Eats post on the fight for Prop 37

Investing in our food future (Part One)

Now that I finally have a “real job”, and my husband and I are expecting our first child, I have begun to think more about long-term investing and retirement income. Money is a tricky thing though. I know I will need to grow my savings now if I ever want to retire or have a safety net for later in life. But how can I grow my savings in a way that aligns with my morals?

Retirement accounts, such as IRAs and 401Ks, allow you to invest money for the long-term with certain tax benefits. Contributions to these accounts can even been matched by your employer. As the owner of a retirement account, you can choose from a number of investment vehicles like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. For those of us with limited time to research companies and track the stock market, mutual funds seem like an easy choice. An investment firm tracks, buys, and sells interests in many different companies while you simply invest in the single mutual fund. The downside of a mutual fund, from my perspective, is that it’s less transparent than purchasing individual stocks.

As a graduate student, the university opened a retirement account for me and invested my money in a mutual fund. I have no idea what companies that fund includes. I’m sure I could do some research and find out, but that somewhat diminishes the convenience of having a mutual fund to begin with. And what if there is one company, out of all of the companies they have invested in, that I would not want to support? Do I go through the holdings of every mutual fund available to find one without any offending holdings? What if the holdings change with time?

What I really want is a mutual fund that I know reflects my values so I don’t have to spend a lot of extra time checking up on the fund. Apparently, there are a lot of people seeking the same thing because socially responsible investments (SRI) are becoming more prevalent these days. These are funds that make investment choices based on a set of principles adopted by the fund. Some funds focus on fair business practices. Others will simply reject sectors they consider bad for society such as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a food sustainability mutual fund, which would exclude companies that genetically modify foods, develop chemical fertilizers and pesticides, or manufacture sugary drinks and snacks. However, there are some SRIs that come close and many more that consider other factors such as worker compensation and environmental sustainability. So there may be a convenient mutual fund that at least gets me closer to a clear conscience. There are also ways of investing in sustainable food systems directly (more on this in Part Two), but there are additional constraints on using these investment vehicles for retirement savings.

Mutually beneficial funds.

The website, Social Funds, maintains a database of socially responsible mutual funds, which you can search based on different social issues (go to the Mutual Funds tab, select Mutual Fund Center from the drop-down menu; then select Social Issues from the SRI Fund Charts drop-down menu). There isn’t an option for sustainable agriculture, but there are options for environment, animal rights, community investment, and human rights. There’s no way I could do an in-depth analysis of every fund on this list, so I picked out a handful to see what’s available.

I found Parnassus Funds, Portfolio 21, and Calvert a bit too vague about their qualifications for investment, but they do consider more than just financial gains. Sentinel Investments and Domini Social Investments did provide detailed information on how they assess companies, but neither made specific statements about agriculture. Looking through their holdings, I didn’t find any GM seed companies or pesticide manufacturers. However, the funds do invest in companies that produce unhealthy foods and beverages like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Kraft Foods. Coca-Cola, in particular, has also come under fire for their water usage practices.

Green Century Funds were the only ones I found that made specific statements about the food and farming sectors. According to their website, the fund looks for companies involved in organic and natural foods, water solutions, alternative energy, sustainable development, and the like. They avoid companies involved in factory farming, genetically-modified organisms, and agricultural pesticides. However, McDonald’s and PepsiCo are both in the top 10 holdings of Green Century’s Equity Fund. Technically, these companies do not engage in bad agricultural practices, but they do benefit from the low cost of factory-farmed beef and chicken, corn-based sweeteners, and other products of industrial agriculture. The Green Century Balanced Fund, on the other hand, does not have any food or beverage companies in its top 10.

Based solely on my concerns about ethical food, I would probably opt for a Green Century Fund because they make the most specific statements about food and farming. However, none of the funds I looked into were without faults. And none of them made me feel like my money would be building a more sustainable food future.

The plethora of socially-responsible mutual funds makes me hopeful that I will be able to invest with my morals in mind. It may take some more investigation to find exactly what I want, or I may simply have to become a vocal investor. Depending on your priorities, you may be able to find a fund that allows you to invest in the future you envision. And it just might help you make some money too.

In Part Two, I will discuss additional investment options in the sustainable farming sector that may not be right for retirement savings.

People for the Ethical Treatment of People.

The semester has come to a close, which means (1) I am now Dr. Ethical Eats and (2) my Tuesdays no longer include amazing lectures from prominent scientists, authors, and activists. Edible Education 101 provided a great overview of food system issues, and I’m glad I got to be a part of it (you can view some of the lectures here). Although I’d seen much of the material before, there were some issues that were new to me.

In comparison to the environmental, ethical, and health effects of our food system, the welfare of farm workers had seemed, to me, a background issue. Partly, it was because there is so much overlap in the problems of environmental impact, sustainability, and animal welfare – the food system becomes a vast and compelling problem almost regardless of which issue you care about. In addition, there are straightforward ways of being part of the solution – change where you eat and what you buy. Alternative farming systems can solve all of these problems at once, and they are gaining momentum. I also naively thought that, while conditions for farm workers might not be as good as they could be, they were perhaps good enough for now while we work to improve other aspects of the food system. As demand for more ethical food increases and becomes more economically viable, advancing farm worker rights would be a natural next step.

Perhaps that is true. However, when Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation) and several members of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) came to speak at Edible Education 101, I learned that farm workers are far worse off than I ever imagined and that there is no such thing as ethical food if it comes out of a system that exploits people at every turn.

Tortured tomatoes.

The town of Immokalee, Florida basically exists for one reason: to grow tomatoes. It’s not an ideal spot for growing tomatoes, and yet, almost every big chain grocery store or fast food restaurant gets their tomatoes from Immokalee. As I learned from Eric and the CIW representatives, farm workers in America are not protected by the same labor laws that apply to other employed people. Many farm workers, such as the tomato pickers in Immokalee, are not paid the minimum hourly wage as set by the federal government. Instead, they are paid corresponding to how much they pick. Technically, the price paid is supposed to be high enough that a farm worker could make at least minimum wage.

According to the CIW website, Immokalee tomato pickers make only 50 cents for every 32 pounds of tomatoes they pick. Thus, to make the minimum wage, an Immokalee worker would have to pick 2.25 tons of tomatoes in a typical 10-hour workday. That’s 4500 pounds of tomatoes in 10 hours of back-breaking outdoor labor, just to make minimum wage. It’s safe to assume, therefore, that Immokalee’s workers are not making minimum wage. In fact, the average annual salary of a tomato-picker in Immokalee is less than $9000 (Bittman, 2011).

Farm workers rarely receive benefits such as sick days or health insurance. Children as young as 12 years old can hold agricultural jobs with many fewer protections than in other industries. Also, the tomato pickers in Immokalee are not regular employees with contracts; they show up each day with no idea as to whether there will be work for them to do or the hours they are likely to be needed.

Even the protections our government does provide are often ignored, and farm owners have found many ways to exploit their workers even after they’ve left the field. In Immokalee, the workers aren’t simply impoverished. They are also routinely beaten, locked in shipping containers, forced to live in squalor, and punished or even killed if they attempt to leave. Sexual harassment and assault of female workers is also routine. Over the past 10 years, dozens of people have been convicted of slavery charges for their unlawful confinement and treatment of thousands of workers in Immokalee. You can read about specific cases here and in detail in the articles linked to at the end of this post. The CIW doesn’t use the word slavery simply to be provocative. There are slaves in Florida, and they picked pretty much every tomato you have ever purchased.

Silent screams.

Now, it’s obvious why the planet or the farm animals do not speak out against the abuses of the modern food system. But why would these people allow themselves to be exploited? Obviously, if you are being watched by armed guards while on the farm and locked in a crate the rest of the time, you aren’t going to have much opportunity to speak up. But many of the workers in Immokalee and elsewhere are simply powerless to advocate for themselves. Farm workers do not have collective bargaining rights, and most farm workers (70% of those in Immokalee) are immigrants with few resources. They often lack the skills, connections, or documentation to obtain better work. It is estimated that half of all our agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants, so speaking out against their abusers is especially risky.

Now, some of you may be wondering if we should care about illegal immigrants. Wouldn’t the problem just go away if the people who aren’t supposed to be here just went home? The answer is no. Legal immigrants and people participating in guest worker programs are just as exploited and mistreated as farm workers of questionable immigration status. As one of the CIW speakers commented, the agriculture industry is very fair – they exploit everyone equally. More importantly, breaking the law doesn’t strip you of your right not to be tortured, robbed, raped, or killed. The crime of entering our country illegally carries the penalty of potentially being forced to leave it. While I recognize that remaining hidden may expose a person to harm, it doesn’t make harm that befalls them any more legal. The situation in Immokalee and elsewhere is not a violation of immigrant rights but a violation of human rights.

But what if we did suddenly expel all undocumented workers from our borders? Would that improve conditions? Not likely. Instead, I would guess that another group of vulnerable citizens would start taking those jobs. Maybe, with a larger proportion of citizens, they could fight for slightly better conditions, but it would still be extremely difficult without collective bargaining and with the extreme pressure to produce the cheapest possible goods.

And that brings us to the heart of the matter. Farm workers are exploited not because they are immigrants but because they can be exploited. If one farmer can produce a cheaper product by exploiting his workers, the other farmers must follow suit or lose their competitive advantage. Or at least, that is the excuse given by the farmers when the Coalition of Immokalee Workers was finally able to voice their grievances. This sounds like a lame excuse, but there is at least an element of truth here. Most people choose what and where they eat based on price. Unless it is obvious why we should pay more, we don’t. This creates a race to the bottom, in which every producer and every retailer through the entire food chain must reduce costs in order to beat out the competition. Unless we enforce and enhance the laws governing farm workers, the people who produce our food will continue to be exploited in order to provide us with the cheapest possible product.

Upon hearing these excuses, the CIW did something very smart. Rather than dealing with the folks at the bottom – farmers, for example, they went to the top of the food chain. The CIW appealed to fast food restaurants and grocery chains to commit to paying more for their tomatoes and to work with the group to make sure the extra money went to workers in Immokalee. How much more did they have to pay? One penny per pound of tomatoes. That’s it. A penny. And yet, this meager increase in price translates to thousands of dollars more each year for the tomato pickers out in the fields.

Through communication, negotiation, and even some boycotting, the Coalition has now received commitments from Taco Bell, Burger King, and Whole Foods. In addition to paying slightly more for tomatoes, these companies agree to buy only those tomatoes from farms that have committed to better treatment for their workers such as providing a shaded area for breaks. It’s sort of shocking to think that is took years of hard work just to have a place to stand out of the sun for 15 minutes during a 10-hour day. It’s a victory for the workers in Immokalee, but still only a tiny step towards truly fair food.

Ethical eating in America.

Now is the point at which I’d normally tell you all the ways you can help improve the conditions of farm workers and eat truly ethical food. Sadly, despite the successes of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, exploitation is still commonplace in our agricultural system. A student in Edible Education 101 asked where she could buy produce that has been grown without such atrocities, if there was a label or certification to look for. Unfortunately, as our speakers explained, there is no such store and no such label. Even the tomatoes sold at Whole Foods, one of the companies that buys better tomatoes through the Campaign for Fair Food, are not truly ethical. The standards for human treatment are so low that it would be irresponsible to call even the CIW approved tomatoes ethical.

Small farms don’t necessarily treat their workers any better than large farms. Organic farmers have long resisted including treatment standards in the government’s organic certification. Because organic farming is more expensive, they say, it would be crippling to also pay higher wages, offer benefits, or improve working conditions. I suppose that’s why it is so much harder to motivate people to fight for higher standards of human welfare in the food system. You can’t simply buy different food or shop at a different store. So what can you do?

First, you can care. Rather than dismissing farm worker rights as I used to, you can educate yourself about the issues involved and be ready to take action when you can. Being aware of and supporting legislation concerning the rights of agricultural workers is an important way to get involved. Immigration reform is also a large factor.

You can support CIW’s Campaign for Fair Food directly by patronizing businesses that have signed their agreement. You can also take part in their letter-writing campaigns and protests of companies that stubbornly refuse to take part – companies like my old favorite, Trader Joe’s. You can find more ways to help on the CIW’s Take Action page.

Another way you can help farm workers is by buying direct from farmers. As I mentioned already, local, organic, or small doesn’t necessarily translate to better working conditions. However, if you can develop relationships with farmers, you can probably get a better idea of their perspective and treatment of their workers. Communicating with your farmer may also allow you to ask some probing questions, such as how much it would cost to improve conditions for the workers in the field. What if all it took was a dollar more for your CSA box? Would you pay it?

Lastly, we need to get the word out about the way we treat our farm workers in this country. When I found out how poorly we treat animals on factory farms, I knew I had to make a change. And now we are talking about people. People who work hard every day so we can eat. People who are, even now, being exploited and enslaved. The more aware people are, the better. You can be a part of the solution by being witness to the moral failings of our food system and speaking out against them. To get you started, here is a list of resources that I hope you will use to push our country to change, to make sure everyone who puts in a hard day’s work gets their fair share.

Organizations:

• The Coalition of Immokalee Workers
• Farmworker Justice

Articles on Immokalee:

• The True Cost of Tomatoes by Mark Bittman (2011)
• Politics of the Plate: The Price of Tomatoes by Barry Estabrook (2009)

Books:

• Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal by Eric Schlosser
• Tomatoland: How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit by Barry Estabrook

Three cheers for salad!

Given that I avoid meat in restaurants and have made a commitment to eating at least 8 cups of veggies a day, you might be surprised to know that I hate salad bar restaurants. Or at least, I used to. Generally, I have found these places overpriced and more focused on pizza and pasta options than on actual salads. Recently, however, a friend dragged me to Fresh Choice, an all-you-can-eat salad bar restaurant.

Although they do serve soups, pasta, pizza, and other non-salad options, the actual salad bar is pretty extensive. And, more strikingly, they make an effort to offer local and organic produce. The labeling system is also quite impressive. Every house-made salad, like the Sesame Kale Toss offered for fall, includes a list of ingredients and icons for every common allergy, as do all the salad dressings and soups. It was easy to deduce the vegan items, vegetarian items that were still dairy free, and the gluten-free offerings. In total, they have labels for foods containing eggs, sesame seeds, sulfites, milk, honey, shellfish, pork, fish, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, and wheat.

At the start of the Fresh Choice salad bar, there is a sign stating what percentage of the day’s produce is locally-grown. I recognized a lot of produce that I’ve been seeing at the farm stand. After all, that’s what grows here! Because of their commitment to local produce, the Fresh Choice menu changes with the seasons. As a child, I remember the excitement when peaches were finally in season, or cherries, or pumpkins. And now, as an adult, I know that eating seasonally is also better for the environment and provides access to cheaper, fresher food.

In addition to the extensive salad bar, some of my favorite Fresh Choice offerings were the baked yams, the broccoli obsession salad, and the spicy curry lentil soup. The only thing they are missing is avocado! After my awesome meal, I had to wonder whether all salad bar restaurants are as progressive as Fresh Choice. So, I checked out the websites for Sweet Tomatoes and Souper Salad.

Sweet Tomatoes lists items that are vegetarian (or not) and gluten-free foods. According to a review on GlutenFreeAZ, however, Sweet Tomatoes does not label the foods within the store. Rather, they have a binder with nutritional information that customers can browse before eating. Sweet Tomatoes also makes a big deal about being a sustainable business. In fact, they have received a Green Restaurant Association Certification. Having never heard of this program, I decided to investigate. According to the press release on the Sweet Tomatoes blog, they received a two-star certification, which is based on seven areas including sustainable food.

Two stars is the lowest certification level, and to achieve that, a restaurant has to be awarded at least 10 points in six of the categories plus an additional 40 points from any or all categories. Even a 4-star certification requires a minimum of only 10 points in the sustainable food category. The points are assigned by calculating the percentage of food costs that meet certain criteria. Buying certified organic food or sustainable seafood is worth 40 points; if a restaurant spent 100% of its food budget on organic food, it would get 40 points. A small number of points are also available for purchasing grass-fed, cage-free, or hormone and antibiotic-free animal products. Vegetarian and vegan fare are rewarded with 30 and 45 points, respectively. Buying regionally can get another 20 points, while buying within 100 miles of the restaurant is worth 40 points. So, if a restaurant served 100% organic vegan food sourced from within 100 miles, it would receive 130 points. Recall that certification requires only 10.

I couldn’t find a break-down of Sweet Tomatoes’ points, but without any mention of commitment to local organic food, on their website I’m not convinced that they are doing anything special in terms of sustainable food. It’s great that they are making a commitment to reduce water usage and waste – some of the other categories within the certification, but I wouldn’t get too excited about their food.

As for Souper Salad, the salad toppings listed on their menu are rather meager. There is no mention of local or organic produce; their cheddar cheese even says it is imitation cheese. They do have icons for vegan, vegetarian, and gluten-free items, and the folks at GlutenFreeAZ were pleased with their experience at Souper Salad. So perhaps this is a good option for people with food allergies, but it doesn’t offer much beyond that.

All in all, it seems that Fresh Choice is doing something novel by really committing to nutritious, environmentally-friendly food. Their practice of listing ingredients and their extensive suite of allergy icons puts the customer in control. Of course, you can still eat badly at Fresh Choice. I saw several people skipping the salad bar all together in favor of pizza, and I saw one kid with only noodles. You can also eat a healthy and wholesome meal, though, and that’s not so easy to do at most restaurants. Next time I have to chose a place to eat, I’m glad to know there is a fresh, and progressive, choice.

The chocolate dilemma.

As I've reduced my consumption of processed foods, one thing I've missed is a sweet treat after dinner. I found that dark chocolate (dairy and gluten free!) is a good option for satisfying my sweet tooth. Sometimes I eat it a chunk all on it's own. Other times I melt it over fresh fruit. Delish!

Recently, I was picking up some groceries from Trader Joe's and decided to check out their chocolate selection. I found a bar that was organic and fair trade, had few additives, and did not list any dairy ingredients or include dairy in the food allergy list. However, it was lacking the symbols that Trader Joe's uses to identify vegan foods. I'm not vegan, of course, but given how sensitive my body is to dairy, it is comforting to see the symbol. Many other chocolate bars at Trader Joe's do bear this symbol.

Naturally, this led me to ponder why this particular chocolate bar was not vegan. I actually brought the bar to the Trader Joe's service desk to inquire further. The man behind the counter (for the life of me, I can't remember his name, so I will refer to him as Joe) was nice enough to look up the chocolate on the master list of food allergies. Sure enough, my organic chocolate bar did not make the cut. Joe offered to look into the matter and call me with an answer.

Imagine my surprise when, the very next day, Joe called me and explained that the organic evaporated cane juice used to sweeten the chocolate was the culprit. Apparently, it is processed using bone char so it cannot be considered vegan or vegetarian. I thanked Joe for his information, and spent the rest of the day trying to figure out what the heck bone char is!

I had a hard time finding well cited information, but it seems that bone char is a type of charcoal filter made of processed animal bones. It is often used for refining sugar cane in order to lighten its color and remove impurities. Evaporated cane juice is the product of this refinement followed by the evaporation of some of the liquid. Many websites stated that evaporated cane juice is never processed with bone char, nor can bone char be used in any organic products. This, of course, conflicts with my experience with Trader Joe's.

I called TJs back to double check. The chocolate bar is only 95% organic, so some conventional ingredients are used. However, the evaporated cane juice is listed in the ingredients as organic. Upon further inspection, I found that bone char is approved as a fertilizer in organic farming, but I could not confirm (or refute) the use of bone char in organic sugar or organic cane juice refinement.

This whole investigation shows quite clearly that anytime you eat processed food, you are taking a risk. It is pretty much impossible to know what exactly is in your food and where it came from. It also highlights how difficult it can be to separate oneself from the industrial food system. It's easy to avoid a big industrial steak or to buy veggie broth rather than chicken broth. But if you really want to eliminate mysterious additives or industrial animal products, you just have to buy food raw and prepare it yourself.

So, what to do about the chocolate... Well, first I will send an email to Trader Joe's and see if I can find out which company makes the organic evaporated cane juice used in their products. Hopefully, I can then figure out if bone char really is used in the processing, and how it can still be considered organic. In the meantime, though, I will probably buy the chocolate. The fact that it is 95% organic means that the 95% of the ingredients were grown in a less environmentally-damaging way. It's also fair trade and contains few additives. It may use bones from animals that were raised in a CAFO, but let's be honest – it isn't the refinement of evaporated cane juice that drives the industrial food system. The proliferation of cheap feed calories and our expectation of unlimited access to cheap meat drive the system. My chocolate consumption (or lack thereof) will not have an impact. It's much more important to avoid industrial meat and processed foods. And besides, every “diet” needs a touch of sweetness. And this dairy-free, gluten-free, organic, fair trade, dark chocolate bar sounds like the best option. Mmm, bone char.


Here are a couple of the links I found regarding bone char:

• The sugar refinement process by the Vegetarian Resource Group
• A list of approved practices for organic growers from The Ohio State University Extension

Fizzy failures.

I am a Dr Pepper freak. Or at least, I used to be. In high school, I started each morning with a can of Dr Pepper. After my morning snack of Reese’s peanut butter cups, I would grab a quick lunch: a cup of pasta with red sauce and (of course) a Dr Pepper. If I still had any change left in my pocket at the end of the day, I would hit the vending machine once more after school.

In college, I upgraded to the plastic bottles. I wanted to recycle them, but I didn’t have easy access to a bin, so the empty bottles would pile up at home, at work, wherever I happened to be. When I first met my now-husband, he stopped by my work to say hi. I wasn’t around so he left me a note in which he pretended to be a building manager and scolded me for the myriad bottles and cans that “peppered” my workstation.

Over time, as I slowly but steadily gained weight, I started to wonder about all that Dr Pepper. I first zeroed in on the calories: 200 in every bottle I drank! A 20-oz bottle also has 68 grams of sugar. I didn’t really know how to interpret that number at the time. According to the Hershey's website, it’s just about the same as eating 7 peanut butter cups. SEVEN. For a while, I switched to Diet Dr Pepper. It didn’t taste as good, though, and I was bothered by all of the chemicals I knew must be in it to make it taste even remotely like Dr Pepper. Luckily, the whole chemical issue got me thinking… What is regular Dr Pepper besides chemicals? High fructose corn syrup is a highly processed substance, so how different is it really? And then I came to the fundamental issue: what is this stuff doing for me anyway?

Human beings have to eat or we die. Eating has a purpose. It nourishes us. It provides us with the absolutely necessary life-sustaining vitamins, minerals, and energy we need to function. In our culture, though, we have turned eating into a form of recreation. We eat something because it tastes good or because it’s convenient or cheap. We eat even when we aren’t hungry. And when we are hungry, we often satisfy that hunger with little regard for the quality of the calories we consume.

So what was all that Dr. Pepper doing for me? Well, at best it was doing nothing. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that drinking soda day in and day out is anything but benign.

“Soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary source of added sugars in Americans’ diets… Between 1970 and 2000, per-person daily consumption of caloric soft drinks increased 70%” [1]

In 2007, a study was published in which the authors reviewed the results of 88 previous studies on the health effects of soda consumption [2]. The first thing they determined was that people who drink soda do not eat less food. Unlike a snack, the extra calories in soda do not lessen a person’s urge to eat. I could never consume seven peanut butter cups in one sitting, partly because I’d be full after only two. I also know that peanut butter cups are candy – they are treats, meant to be enjoyed only now and then. I had no problem consuming just as much sugar in soda form, though, and never gave it much thought.

The same study found some evidence that drinking soda actually makes people consume more calories at mealtime than they otherwise would [2]. One reason for this may be that drinking soda conditions you to want sweet things, so you seek out sweeter (and generally higher calorie) foods throughout the day. The effect of soda consumption on overall calorie intake seems to be strongest amongst women.

The link between soda consumption and Type 2 diabetes was quite strong, according to the report: “In a study of 91,249 women followed for 8 years, those who consumed 1 or more servings of soft drink per day were twice as likely as those who consumed less than one serving per month to develop diabetes over the course of the study.” [2] Even when BMI and other factors were considered, this outcome persisted. Soda consumption was also linked to calcium deficiency and poor bone health although these were probably indirect effects; people who drink lots of soda tend to consume less milk or other dairy – the main sources of calcium in a typical Western diet.

Sugar is a huge downside of soda. Table sugar is sucrose – approximately equal parts glucose and fructose. High fructose corn syrup, which is the sweetener of choice in most sodas, is about 55% fructose. Either way, drinking soda delivers a lot of fructose. The liver is responsible for breaking it down, but it can only handle so much. The high levels we consume (mainly as HFCS in soft drinks and other processed products) can actually lead to a serious condition called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [3]. It’s called “non-alcoholic” to distinguish this type of liver disease from cirrhosis caused by alcoholism. An important thing to note is that alcohol is just fermented fructose; your liver doesn’t see much difference between the two. So even if it won’t make you drunk, sugar can fry your liver just as effectively as booze.

If the sugar in soda is such a problem, is diet soda the solution? Unfortunately, it’s not looking that way. Although the exact biochemical and physiological processes are not well-understood, there is increasing evidence that even diet soda contributes to obesity and metabolic syndrome. In a long-term study by the UT Health Science Center, people who consumed diet soda increased their waist circumference by 70% more than participants who did not. Those who drank at least two diet sodas a day had 500% larger increase in waist circumference over non-drinkers. A different study - of 10,000 people over 9 years - found that those who consumed ONE can of diet soda per day were 34% more likely to develop metabolic disorder. Additional studies also linked diet soda consumption with higher rates of obesity and high cholesterol.

“On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese,” said Sharon Fowler, M.P.H., faculty associate in the division of clinical epidemiology in the Health Science Center’s department of medicine. (From the UT Health Science Center press release)

In the search to understand why diet soda would make people fat, researchers looked into the effects of aspartame on mice (read more here). It turns out that the mice experience an insulin response from consuming aspartame. It’s a big leap from mice to men, but perhaps our bodies recognize sweetness and respond – in part, by releasing insulin – even if the sweet taste is synthetic and calorie-free. Caramel color has also been linked to insulin response in some preliminary studies. Research into the effectiveness of sports drinks on athletic performance may offer some clues as well. Cyclists were given a swig of sport drink, and they either swallowed it or swished it in their mouths and spit it out. Participants in both groups saw a performance enhancement. Just having the drink in their mouths caused their bodies to respond. It is an intriguing result (read more about the study here and here). It seems the body may begin responding to artificially sweetened sodas, flavored water, or sports drinks as though it was about to get sugar even if the sugar never arrives.

Our bodies respond to sugar by releasing insulin. The more our bodies produce insulin, the more likely we are to become insulin resistant. The result is that our bodies do not release fat as easily as they are supposed to, and we ultimately get fatter. Type 2 diabetes is an serious form of insulin resistance.

The idea that regular consumption of sweets makes people crave them even more may also contribute to the correlation between diet soda and obesity. People drink diet soda, thereby avoiding the extra sugar and calories of regular soda, but it is made up elsewhere. A poor diet overall may also be a contributing factor. Every fast food restaurant has soda available; frequenting these places means you are eating unhealthy food and washing it down with soda. Even diet soda is not going to make up for the extra calories, added sugar, and fat in the food.

From an environmental standpoint, our high soda consumption is also worrying. It currently takes between 1.7 and 3.1 liters of water to produce 1 liter of Coke (depending on the location of the plant) [4]. Coke has actually received a lot of criticism for their practices in India and other parts of the world; their plants have drained local wells and contaminated groundwater. Only 1% of Earth’s water is both drinkable and accessible, and we are using quite a lot of it to make and bottle soda. And that doesn’t even include the water and fossil fuels required to grow the corn used in making high fructose corn syrup. (Of course, our surplus of cheap corn is the reason we have so much cheap sweetener for soda; if we all stopped drinking soda, some other use would be found for cheap corn.) It is crazy to think about just how many resources are now devoted to creating beverages that give us nothing we need and a lot of things we don’t want.

Our perception of soda as simply a water substitute is flawed and maybe even dangerous. Soda is dessert. It may be tasty, but it should not be consumed at every meal or probably even every day. Diet soda (and possibly other artificially sweetened drinks) can still contribute to the health problems associated with regular soda. And all of these drinks require precious resources that could be put to better use.

I am no longer known for my obsession with Dr Pepper. Now people send me links to articles about food or ask me for tips on running. There was a time when Dr Pepper brought me so much pleasure, but in the end, it is just a drink. There is a lot more to life than soda. And there may be more to life without soda.


References:
[1] Johnson, R.K., et al. (2009) Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 120, p. 1011=1020.
[2] Vartanian, L.R., et al. (2007) Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 94-4, p. 667-675.
[3] Ouyang, X., et al. (2008) Fructose consumption as a risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Journal of Hepatology, 48, p. 993-999.
[4] Greenbiz article on Coca-Cola's attempts to improve its water usage

Almonds, a nutty industry.

I love peanut butter. I mean, LOVE. Especially smeared on a toasted English muffin or on sliced apple – amazing! And there is nothing better than following each tasty bite with some piping hot coffee. It totally makes my morning.

Despite my infatuation with peanut butter, I’ve been trying to change things up. Having exactly the same foods every day means that I am getting the same nutrition every day – and missing out on the same nutrients. Also, peanuts are technically legumes. The Paleo diet recommends nuts rather than legumes, which contain anti-nutrients.

As I began my quest for a nut butter as awesome as my peanut butter, the first thing I noticed is that, unlike peanut butter, organic nut butters are basically non-existent. Apparently, organic nuts are rare and expensive. Despite the few options, I was able to find Kettle Brand Almond Butter (yup, the same guys who make the chips), Silk Almond Milk, and Pacific Natural Foods Organic Almond Milk (yay, organic!). I also picked up squeeze packs of Justin’s Almond Butter; sadly, stores near me don’t sell the jars. Later, I sat down with a glass of almond milk and started reading about almond production. What I found kinda made me not want to drink it anymore.

In 2004, there were two relatively small salmonella outbreaks that were linked back to almonds. Without any real pressure from consumers or the government, the Almond Board of California – the trade organization for US almonds - recommended to the USDA that all almonds be pasteurized to eliminate contamination. As of 2007, all domestic almonds must be pasteurized before they can be sold.

Quoting the Almond Board of California (ABC) website, the following are allowed methods of pasteurization:

• Oil roasting, dry roasting, and blanching: These traditional processes provide the necessary reduction in harmful bacteria while providing consumers with the same product they have come to know and love.


• Steam processing: These treatments are surface treatments only. Multiple proprietary steam treatments are currently being utilized by the industry which meets USDA Organic Program standards. The short bursts of steam do not impact the nutritional integrity of the almond. These treatments do not “cook” proteins or destroy vitamins and minerals. The nutritional and sensory characteristics of the almonds remain unchanged when treated with steam.


• Propylene Oxide (PPO) treatment: PPO is also a surface treatment which has been approved for use on foods since 1958, and is widely used for a variety of foods such as other nuts, cocoa powder and spices. PPO is very effective at reducing harmful bacteria on almonds and poses no risk to consumers. In fact, PPO residue dissipates after treatment. The effectiveness and safety of this process was revalidated in July 2006, when PPO underwent a stringent re-registration process with the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA confirmed that PPO poses no health risk. The treatment does not affect the nutritional and sensory characteristics of almonds.

Despite the ABC claims that PPO is perfectly safe, the European Union has banned PPO on both domestic and imported almonds*. It is also considered a “probable carcinogen” and has many harmful side effects. Supposedly, the PPO dissipates and should not reach harmful levels in almonds. It is still an unsettling thought that this toxic chemical is in my food. I’d certainly prefer to avoid it if possible, but that’s harder than you might think.

Because steam processing and PPO treatments are surface treatments, almonds treated in these fashions can still be labeled as raw. That means, when you purchase almonds, almond butter, or almond milk, there is no way to know how the almonds were processed.

Pasteurization increases the cost involved with producing almonds. Using the steam method, the only method allowed for organic almonds, is apparently more expensive than the PPO treatment. Perhaps that explains why so few organic almonds are produced compared to peanuts; it’s simply too expensive. In addition, imported almonds are not required to undergo any treatments whatsoever, making them more competitive with domestically produced almonds.

The pasteurization requirement came after salmonella contamination sickened people. How do almonds get salmonella in the first place? Animals carry the bacteria that can sicken people; almonds don’t. According to the agricultural extension of Rutgers University, “possible sources of contamination in the field or packinghouse could include use of contaminated irrigation or wash water (from a bacterially contaminated well or pond), use of improperly composted manure in the field, or handling of the produce by sick field or packinghouse workers.”

Basically, if we were more careful with our produce, salmonella contamination simply wouldn’t be an issue. In our pursuit of a cheaper product, we allow (and in effect, force) growers and producers to cut corners. And for some reason, an acceptable solution to this problem is to add more chemicals to make up for poor production practices. As consumers, we now have very few choices. We can pay the nearly $20 per pound for organic almonds or accept the risk of PPO.

As for almond butter, there are few options, all of them considerably more expensive than organic peanut butter. Strangely, despite the fact that peanuts were linked to a much worse salmonella outbreak than has ever been caused by almonds, I found no indication that pasteurization is required for peanuts.

I found a few retailers who sell organic almond butter:
Quail Oaks Ranch
Once Again Nut Butter
Rejuvenative

In addition, Justin’s Nut Butters only uses steam-treated almonds. I know this because Justin’s website contains sourcing information on every ingredient in every product they sell. From farm locations to food miles, Justin’s is clearly committed to using sustainable ingredients and practices AND making that information available to the public. Justin even held a sustainable squeeze packet summit in an effort to find a greener alternative to his single-serving nut butter packets. You can follow his progress on his blog. Justin’s almond butter comes in 16 oz. jars for just under $10. Other products include peanut and almond butters either plain, with honey, or with chocolate, maple almond butter, chocolate hazelnut butter, and ORGANIC PEANUT BUTTER CUPS! You can purchase some products online or do a retailer search.

I will definitely be more careful of what almond products I buy in the future. I prefer to avoid PPO, and I would always rather support smaller organic farms that employ more sustainable practices. Hence, I’ll be sticking with organic almond products or buying from companies like Justin’s that are choosing steam instead. Either way, my morning coffee and nut butter ritual is here to stay!


* - I was unable to confirm via the EUs website that PPO-treated almonds have been banned. However, the ban was mentioned in virtually every article I read on the subject of PPO use in almond production.

Make it so.

For the past few years, my (geek) husband has read every issue of Make Magazine cover-to-cover. For the uninitiated, Make is a do-it-yourself (DIY) magazine that provides instructions for building gadgets like a camera that can be flown on a kite or a credit card reader. They also offer reader challenges such as the best way to tie one’s shoes. The sister magazine, Craft, offers similar DIY advice on everything from shelving units to pillows to clothing and jewelry. Both magazines enable people to tinker and create in ways we didn’t know we could or have simply stopped doing in the “age of convenience”.

In addition to slick magazines and websites chock full of even more project ideas, tips, and forums, the magazines have spawned the Maker Faire. Several times a year, in cities across the US, self-proclaimed “makers” meet up to share ideas and techniques, peddle their wares, and contribute to a community of people who like to do-it-themselves.

My local Maker Faire took place in San Mateo on May 21st and 22nd (yup, same day as the apocalypse). I attended the first day with my husband and several friends. There is so much to see and do at a Maker Faire! This year, though, I was most excited for the Hometown Village – an area devoted to DIY food, farming, and homesteading. Seeing people take such pleasure in activities we often think of as chores, and coming up with creative innovative ideas, was inspiring. Here are a few booths/groups that really caught my attention.

I am 100% Homegrown.

Created by the non-profit organization, Food Aid, Homegrown.org is building a social network around food cultivation, preservation, and enjoyment. Like all social networking sites, members create profiles, connect with friends, upload photos, and post status messages. Groups and discussions add value to the site by allowing people to access information about when to plant a certain vegetable or the best way to raise backyard chickens. They also have an easy way of connecting people with their real-life communities. Produce swaps and dinner clubs are examples of the community-building potential of Homegrown.org.

Homegrown also enables bloggers to add their posts to their profiles and aggregates all members’ posts on their blog page. What a great way to connect readers and bloggers! I am already hooked on Dissertation to Dirt, a blog by a young married couple trying to start their own organic farm.

At the Maker Faire, Homegrown distributed fun and colorful info cards (found here). One had recipe for kale pesto, another had instructions on how to save tomato seeds, and the third explained how to build a self-watering container. They also had free pins and stickers!



I’m a fun guy.

It turns out that great coffee doesn’t just perk us up. It also perks up mushrooms. That’s right – used coffee grounds can be reused as soil to grow gourmet oyster mushrooms. I know this because Nikhil Arora, co-founder of Back to the Roots, explained it to me at his Maker Faire booth.

Along with his business partner, Alejandro Velez, these two UC-Berkeley students (Go, Bears!) have created a thriving business in which they collect used coffee grounds from participating Peet’s Coffee establishments and use them to grow mushrooms that are sold in various Whole Foods stores. They also sell mushroom growing boxes that contain enough used coffee to grow at least two batches of mushrooms in your own home. The best part is that mushroom growing enriches the coffee grounds so they can be added to the soil used in other plants. Rather than sending tons of coffee grounds to a landfill, Back to the Roots enables people to turn that coffee into delicious mushrooms and great fertilizer.

I picked up a Grow Your Own Mushroom Garden from the Maker Faire booth. Nikhil explained that it would take about 10 days for my mushrooms to grow once I started them. Hopefully, I will soon have cool pictures of my mushroom farm to share with all of you! You can pick up your own mushroom garden from the Back to the Roots website for $19.99 plus shipping. There is also a blog with many mushroom recipes. (You can read more about Nikhil and Alejandro in a post over at Civil Eats.)

I am a very-veggie partly-paleo dairy-intolerant ethical omnivore.

I’ve talked a lot recently about shopping because healthy eating begins with what foods you choose to bring into your home. The NuVal scoring system and Whole Food’s ANDI scores are intended to help people make better food choices once they get to the grocery store. While useful, these systems only reflect one idea of healthy and are not available in all areas.

Shopwell is an interactive customizable scoring system you can access online. Added sugars and foods with low nutritional content perform poorly, just as in the other systems, but Shopwell allows you to alter the scores based on your preferences. Scores can be augmented to account for various food intolerances, target specific health problems such as diabetes or high cholesterol, or to avoid certain nutrients like sodium. There are positive alteration options, too, such as athletic training or getting more fiber.

Shopwell allows you to build your grocery list and then gives you the option to “trade-up”. Based on your preferences – and the standard scoring system – Shopwell recommends similar foods that score higher than the brand or food that you would normally purchase. Little changes can go a long way, and it may be easier than you think to make better choices.

I’m a Maker.

The Maker Faire was exciting, and not just because I got to have my picture taken with R2D2. It’s because people are finding fulfillment in the simple process of creating. And a lot of their creations are making a sustainable, healthful, ethical food system closer to a reality. I am proud to be a part of this community – a maker of worm bins, tomatoes, and in my small way, a whole food revolution.