AHS13: A caveman's guide to world hunger.

In August, I had the privilege of speaking at the third annual Ancestral Health Symposium, which focused on an evolutionary approach to nutrition and health. The title of my talk, “Give them grains? Analyzing approached to world hunger”, was intentionally provocative as this group has pretty negative views of the role of grains in human nutrition. I wanted to get people’s attention because, quite often, the response I get from this community is that they care about making healthy choices for themselves, whether or not those choices are sustainable or widely accessible. While I understand this view, opting out of the conversation about our global food future means that we are less likely to develop a food system that meets the demands of health-conscious people. As it happens, I also care about the accessibility of food, especially for the poor. What follows is the content of my presentation at AHS13.   

According to the UN’s Food & Agriculture Organization, there are more than 850 million starving people in the world. Moreover, there are a staggering 2 billion malnourished people. In fact, malnutrition kills 2.6 million children each year, and 1 in 4 children experience irreversible stunted growth. Vitamin A deficiency alone affects 250 million preschool-aged children; many become blind as a result, and half of the children who become blind die within a year.

Clearly, when we think about how to feed the world, we need to be considering the nutritional value of food as well as its caloric yield. Calories may keep a starving person alive for a day or a week, but to have someone survive for months, years, or decades, nutrition is key.

The most common proposed solution to world hunger is based on the premise that we can use grains to increase the total number of available calories, worldwide. We can do this by growing more grains, increasing grain productivity, and eating more of the grains we currently grow rather than using them for animal feed or fuel. This last point is especially relevant for industrial corn. Several studies have analyzed precisely how many more calories could be consumed if they were eaten “directly” rather than eating animals fed with corn.

To really determine whether eating more corn can help feed the world, we need to consider the type of food produced in this system and the trade-offs between corn and other crops.

In 2011, the US harvested 83 million acres of industrial corn, which does not include sweet corn that you would eat on the cob or out of a can. The same amount of land comprises the entire National Parks system. According to the USDA, 52% of the 2011 corn crop was used for fuel and exports, thereby contributing zero calories to the US food supply. Another 37% of the corn was used as animal feed, leaving only 11% of the crop for food. It seems pretty clear that using more corn for food would produce more calories, but how much more? 

The above chart shows my estimate of the caloric yield of the corn crop based on the current usage distribution. If 37% of the corn crop was eaten indirectly through corn-fed animals and 11% was eaten directly as “food”, I estimate a yield of 1.8 million calories from the 2011 corn harvest. If, however, we had eaten the animal feed ourselves (for a total of 48% in the food category), it could have delivered 2.5 million calories. And, if the entire crop were used for food, it would yield 5.3 million calories. That means we could just about triple the number of corn calories in the food system simply by devoting it all to food. Let’s take this one step further, though. What kind of food do we actually produce from industrial corn?

Before humans can consume industrial corn, it has to be heavily processed. Again, based on USDA statistics, the 2011 corn calories were delivered in the form of high fructose corn syrup, glucose and dextrose, corn starch, alcohol, and corn oil (which makes up the majority of the "Cereals, other" category). Despite the calories, no one can survive on a diet made of these foods. More importantly, consuming calories in these forms does little to reduce the total number of calories a person needs. For example, studies have shown that drinking a soda, which delivers a few hundred calories, will not cause someone to eat fewer calories throughout the day. That means, regardless of how many additional corn syrup calories we can deliver to the food system, we will still need to produce the same number of calories from other foods to meet everyone’s caloric needs. To borrow a term from economics, corn-based calories have diminishing marginal utility.

But let’s forget about calories for a moment. Given that billions of people in the world are malnourished, what are the relative amount of micronutrients that corn would deliver in each of these systems? I chose two micronutrients, vitamin A and folate, for this analysis because deficiencies are known to cause serious, life-threatening health problems.

It turns out that the best source of corn-based micronutrients (based on efficiency and content) actually comes from chicken liver. A back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that, based on our current corn usage, an acre of industrial corn could provide 141 people with their recommended daily amount of vitamin A and 66 people their RDA of folate through the consumption of corn-fed chicken livers. On the other hand, if we stopped feeding corn to animals, and used it instead to make corn syrup, corn oil, and the like, we would produce zero RDAs of these micronutrients. Finally, if we used all of our corn in such a way as to maximize vitamin A and folate production, we would feed all of our corn to chickens, which would enable us to feed 385 people their RDA of vitamin A and 180 people their RDA of folate with one acre of corn.

Eating our corn directly would provide an increase in available calories, but it would also reduce the already minimal micronutrients delivered by corn. The standard American diet is already rich in the types of food that corn can produce. As a nation, we already generate 3770 calories per person per day, and 70% of the average American’s calories come from refined grain, added sugar, and refined vegetable oil. We also have a nation of very sick people. Over 35% of adults are obese, more than 23 million have Type 2 diabetes, and another 79 million have pre-diabetes. Is this really the diet we want to use to end world hunger?

Given that corn is such an abysmal source of vital micronutrients, it’s worth asking if there is anything better we could grow. Organic produce is more sustainable than conventional agriculture and typically more diverse. The USDA’s organic production survey compiled statistics for the 22 highest yielding fruits and vegetables, which were grow on a tiny 118,000 acres – that’s 0.14% of the land devoted to industrial corn.

Using nutrition data from self.nutritiondata.com, I calculated that the 22 highest yielding organic crops generated 3 million calories per acre. That’s more than corn delivers even if we stopped feeding corn to animals but less than if we devoted the entire crop to food. Nutritionally, however, the organic crops clearly dominate.

To simplify the calculations, I selected two organic crops and used the USDA data to determine the per acre yield of each one. I then calculated the RDAs of both vitamin A and folate. If we grew an acre of organic carrots, we could deliver ¾ of a million people their RDA of vitamin A and more than 1600 people their RDA of folate. From an acre of organic spinach, we would supply almost 61,000 people their RDA of vitamin A and 14,000 people their RDA of folate. 

To summarize, we could produce more calories by eating more corn products, but it would reduce the amount of available micronutrients and not do much to reduce the caloric needs of our population. Sustaining a healthy population is even more problematic as corn provides either micronutrients or calories, but not both. Corn agriculture also requires a great deal of inputs with many negative outputs. In contrast, organic agriculture can provide about 50% of the maximum caloric yield of corn, while also providing prodigious micronutrients. In marginal environments, which are more common in the developing world, organic agriculture can actually produce more calories than conventional, input-intensive agriculture. However, developing truly sustainable agricultural systems, worldwide, will require dedication, creativity, and investments in research and labor.

Overall, growing nutritious crops will likely produce fewer calories. However, globally, we already grow more than 2700 calories per person per day. Even in the countries with the highest rates of hunger, only two actually have too few calories available, and even those are within 100 calories of their daily per capita needs. Chronic hunger and malnutrition are caused by poverty, political instability, and lack of infrastructure. Simply producing more calories, in any form, is unlikely to end world hunger if issues of access are not addressed. Hence, the lower caloric yield of organic crops seems worth the trade-off given their delivery of vital micronutrients, promising yields in places where the poor actually live, and the potential for sustainability.

I think I have made the case that eating more corn products, rather than eating corn-fed animals, is not a good solution to world hunger. In fact, eating corn-fed animal products is the only way to get micronutrients from corn. However, I do not, in any way, support feeding corn to ruminants or raising animals in confinement. Rather, I think we should stop growing industrial corn and go back to raising animals in traditional pasture-based systems. This would likely reduce the amount of meat available in the food system, although I have yet to see a detailed study of the potential yields of polyculture, pasture-based farming systems. Regardless, limiting our consumption of animal products to the level that can be produced sustainably seems like the right approach. 

Overall, this analysis has revealed the importance of considering nutrition, in addition to caloric yield, when making decisions about what we should grow and eat. This above slide lists several ways we can support real solutions to world hunger and organizations who appear, to me, to be taking the right approach. Whether you base your eating habits on what is healthy for you or healthy for the world, I encourage you to get involved and make the food system work for everyone.

I want to thank Eric Huff and Tess McEnulty for their assistance with this project and the Ancestral Health Society for creating a forum for this type of work. Additional citations and background for the calculation of the caloric yield of corn can be found in my previous post. Supporting materials for the hunger assessment by country and specific inputs and outputs of the conventional food system can be found in my 2012 AHS talk, which is described in detail here.

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

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.

Organic food, only a click away.

As my last post described, eating fresh veggies (and some fruit) is the cornerstone to any healthy diet from the USDA guidelines to the Paleo Diet and so on. With all I’ve read and learned over the past couple of years, I am fully convinced that seasonal local produce, grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers, is best for our personal health and the health of people in farming communities. It is also the most sustainable way of growing food now and for years to come. In the past, accessing organic (or beyond organic) foods was challenging due to lack of availability and the corresponding high price. Nowadays, there are many options for even the busiest people to get high quality, fresh, organic foods.

Joining a CSA* is great option, but I’ve recently stumbled across something that may be better for busy people who want organic food but don’t want to add an extra chore like picking up a CSA box or taking a trip to the farmers market. There are now several online businesses that allow you to place a customizable order online and have the food delivered to your doorstep. Many of these businesses focus on organic foods and offer more than just produce. These services can actually eliminate your weekly shopping trips altogether.

With a little bit of internet searching, I was able to find organic food delivery options throughout the country – from the SF Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle, to Austin, D.C., Chicago, and more! Some online stores work directly with local farmers and strive to supply most of their food from within the region. Others are more focused on variety and meeting the demands of customers even if it means getting produce from Mexico or beyond.

Each service allows customers to place orders that arrive as frequently as once a week. The specific foods you receive can be changed each week online through your account. Those services that provide more than just produce allow you to search for foods based on allergies, such as wheat or dairy intolerance, which can make shopping much easier. All of the services I viewed deliver food to your doorstep even if you are not at home. Care is taken to preserve food that may be left out for hours. If you prefer to keep your food indoors you can give them a key to your house or garage.

Planet Organics, which delivers to the SF Bay Area, focuses heavily on locally-sourced foods. In addition to produce, they offer meat and seafood, eggs, milk, and processed organics like cereal and pasta. Planet Organics uses about a dozen labels to quickly identify vegetarian options, common allergens, certified organic foods, and even grass-fed or pasture-raised animal products. Another neat option is the ability to add products to a favorites list. If you really love blackberries, for example, you can add them to the list and receive blackberries anytime they are available. They also offer recipes with ready-made groups of ingredients (called meal kits) that you can add to your shopping list. The interface is easy to use and your food delivery is very customizable. The minimum purchase is $32.

Here are a few other doorstep organic companies that deliver outside my area:

• Greenling: Based out of Austin, TX, these guys seem very passionate about working with local farmers and getting healthy produce to the people of Central Texas! If you live in Austin, this sounds like a great option for local organic produce and locally-sourced artisan products at a minimum of $25 per box. They even have gift cards with seeds in them, so you can plant them after use. Neat!


• SPUD: With delivery areas in the SF Bay Area, Seattle, L.A., and several cities in Canada, SPUD was certainly the flashiest site I found. While they do offer some local organic produce, you have to do a bit of searching to isolate these options. SPUD is probably a good option for people who just want healthy food and lots of processed food options, like waffles and juice, and aren’t too worried about where their food is grown.


• Suburban organics: This company delivers to many east coast areas including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and parts of New York and Maryland. They offer mainly produce, all of it organic. In summer months, the food is mostly local (unless you request things like bananas and mangoes, which will never be local). In winter, though, they rely on shipments from Mexico and South America. Again, this is a good option for people who are mostly concerned with having easy access to organic food. Suburban Organics also partners with Door-to-door Organics, which has hubs in and around Colorado, Kansas City, Chicago, and Michigan.

There are many components to eating ethically. Human health, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability are all important aspects of a truly ethical food system. Organic bananas or out-of-season tomatoes are not the best options when it comes to the environment. Processed organic products and organic produce from industrial-scale monoculture farms are other examples of foods that live up to the label of certified organic but probably offer little improvement in sustainability over their conventional counterparts. Despite these shortcomings, restoring the health and well-being of our population is a worthy goal. Organic home delivery offers an opportunity for more people to access fresh and healthy foods, and local or not, that is a huge step forward.

* - Community supported agriculture (CSA) programs link farmers and consumers directly. Typically, you commit to purchasing a certain amount of food (produce, meat, etc.) each week. A box is delivered either to your home or to a central drop-off location. CSAs offer food that is currently being harvested, so it’s the easiest way to get seasonal fresh food. I am a member of the CSA at Eatwell Farm, which delivers one box every two weeks to a location near my work. I get several kinds of fruits and veggies plus a half dozen eggs. You can read more about my motivations for joining a CSA in this post, and about my experience with the Eatwell Farm CSA specifically in this post.

From farm to Fremont.

There is a chill in the air and the scent of fireplaces in use. The sweaters have come out of the back of the closet. The leaves on the tree outside my building have changed color and dropped to the ground. Yes, winter is coming up fast. And while there are many things to love about wintertime – pumpkins, egg nog, snuggling, and snowboarding – there is one significant downside. The J.E. Perry Farms produce stand is closing for the winter, and my main source for local, organic, and surprisingly affordable produce is going away.

Before I found the produce stand, I purchased most of my fruits and veggies at the Newark farmers market and the rest from Trader Joe’s. The farmers market is still a good option, but it takes a lot of effort to vet the farmers. Unlike the Ferry Plaza farmers market in SF or the Berkeley farmers market, these vendors are not expected to follow any particular practices or farming philosophy (although local and small farms are given some preference, and GMOs are not allowed). That means it’s up to me to ask lots of questions, and I have to simply trust that the vendors know the answers and are telling me the truth.

Relying on a farmers market also means I have to shop during specific hours, usually only one day a week. If I have something else to do that day, or I’m sick, or it’s Tuesday at 6pm – well, I’m stuck with Trader Joe’s or maybe even Safeway. While it’s better than not having access to produce at all, I’m no longer satisfied with industrial organic produce, heralding from distant lands, and shrink-wrapped in plastic.

An option I have not yet tried is joining a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. A farmer or group of farmers can choose to sell shares in their harvest as part of a CSA program. Members pay in advance to receive boxes of fresh produce - and possibly also eggs, meat, or other farm goods - over a specified length of time. This gives farmers a steadier source of income and helps mitigate unforeseen problems like bad weather. CSA members get fresh, local produce from a farm that fits their needs and values. Farms that participate in CSAs are generally small, family-owned, polycultures that use sustainable practices. These are the farms rarely represented in a grocery store because they do not produce a vast quantity of one or two crops. Building strong relationships between growers and eaters is beneficial for both parties, and CSA participation is on the rise.

Local Harvest, a site devoted to helping consumers find sustainable farms, farmers markets, and other resources, maintains a list of CSA programs throughout the United States. The site claims to have over 2,500 CSA farms in their database with the number growing all the time. I used the CSA search tool on Local Harvest to find a program in my area: Fremont, California. (I also used it to find a delicious nearby restaurant that uses locally-sourced ingredients!)

Out of the 20 (!) listings on Living Harvest for CSA programs in my area, I narrowed it down to three and finally one: the Eatwell Farm CSA. I picked this program because it has a drop-off near my work on Thursday evenings, which totally fits into my schedule. They offer a wide variety of veggies and fruits even in winter. And they have eggs. Incredible, ethical eggs! Also, I have seen Eatwell Farm’s produce and eggs at the Ferry Plaza Farmers Market so I know they are high quality goods and that the farm uses sustainable practices, as that market requires. They also had a nice website with a lot of information about the farm, member feedback, and even a farm blog. I just signed up for their 4-week trial subscription, which will include a half dozen eggs and a whole lot of produce for $108. That’s $27 per week, which is about what I spend now. I’m also opting to receive a box every other week to start with.

Given that I have to pick up my box on a certain day and time window, this option may not be much better than the farmers market. However, picking up my CSA box is a lot faster than shopping! Plus, I know I am supporting a farm that I can be proud of. I guess I'll just have to test it out and see. For now, though, I’m looking forward to my first mystery box from Eatwell Farm and a carton of beautiful eggs!

Organic II: Things that make you go eww.

When researching my last post on organic agriculture, I came across one restriction that I didn’t quite understand: no use of sewage sludge. I’ll admit that the words “sewage sludge” have a serious nose wrinkling effect on me, but should they? What is sewage sludge, and how is it used in conventional agriculture?

Also called biosolids, probably to reduce the aforementioned nose wrinkling, sewage sludge is the material removed from wastewater during its treatment. The residential component of wastewater is everything we flush down the toilet or pour down the drain. Human waste contains substances like nitrogen and phosphorous, which can be extremely valuable for fertilizing crops. Thus, using human waste that is removed from treated wastewater for agriculture could conceivably provide a disposal method for the ever-growing pile of human waste while simultaneously providing a natural and sustainable source of chemicals used for fertilizer. Despite the “yuck-factor”, it seems like utilizing biosolids in agriculture could be a good thing. So why is it banned under the National Organic Program?

The trouble is that human waste isn’t the only type of material that contributes to sewage sludge. Industrial waste products are combined with residential wastewater when entering the treatment facility. In addition, not all residential waste is natural, human waste. These additional sources can result in potentially harmful substances persisting through the treatment process and making it into sewage sludge.

According to a nationwide EPA study of sewage sludge [1], samples from all 74 treatment plants tested contained heavy metals, carcinogens, industrial chemicals like flame retardants, and even antibiotics, steroids, and hormones. Little is known about the affects of combining all of these substances in a vat of sludge and, when applied to farmland used for growing food or grazing land for animals that are eventually sent to slaughter, there is potential for food contamination. In addition, these materials may adversely affect farm workers and people living near farms in which sewage sludge is applied.

Concrete evidence is difficult to find mainly because there is little research (or even funding for research) on the direct or indirect health effects of using sewage sludge in agriculture. In addition, there is no standard method for reporting or compiling health complaints related to sewage sludge. Lack of research has led to a lack of evidence that sewage sludge negatively impacts human health, which is often used to justify weak regulation and a lack of comprehensive testing. Complaints about health effects from sewage sludge are often dismissed because there is no evidence that the sludge causes people to get sick. Of course, there is no evidence that sewage sludge is safe either.

Anecdotal evidence and one small scientific study [2] suggest that people in close proximity to farms that apply sewage sludge do experience adverse affects including skin ulcers, upper respiratory infections, and gastrointestinal issues – just to name a few. The study dealt with exposure to the less treated (Class B) type of sewage sludge, but even the better-treated version (Class A) may cause health problems, and both types are being used in agriculture.

Recently, sewage sludge made waves in the San Francisco Bay Area when the SF Public Utilities Commission gave away free fertilizer described as “organic biosolids compost” that was actually treated sewage sludge [3]. The use of the word organic was considered misleading because it could be interpreted as being related to organic agriculture rather than simply including organic matter. The program was suspended after the Organic Consumers Association organized a protest at City Hall on March 4th, 2010. I checked the SFPUC website for more information on the biosolids program. No upcoming giveaways were mentioned, and I found no references to “organic” – merely free biosolids compost. They also note that biosolids are currently used on agricultural land in Solano and Sonoma counties in addition to the giveaways. The FAQ was an interesting read; they explain that biosolids are safe because they comply with EPA testing requirements. Unfortunately, the myriad substances found in the nationwide EPA study discussed above show that current regulations may be woefully inadequate in determining the safety of biosolids because many potentially harmful substances that are present in sewage sludge are unrestricted. In addition, the FAQ describes the biosolids program as strictly monitored and regulated, but many other sources suggest otherwise.

At present, to be certified organic, foods cannot be produced with sewage sludge. Until more research is done into the potentially harmful side effects of additional contaminants, or human wastewater is collected separately for use in creating biosolids, I’m glad there is an option to avoid food grown with sewage sludge. And with that, I’m off to the farmers market for some local, organic produce - sans sludge!


Sources (cited or summarized):
[1] EPA study website
[2] S. Khuder et al., 2007. Health Survey of Residents Living near Farm Fields Permitted to Receive Biosolids. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health 62 (1): 5–11. doi:10.3200/AEOH.62.1.5-11
[3] Sourcewatch article on sewage sludge
NY Times article on the barriers to biosolids research
Science magazine article on EPA study
SFPUC website
A good summary of sludge including several of the sources cited here can be found on the Wikipedia page on sludge.