Helping hunger + helping your brain

If you're an NPR devotee, you've probably already heard about Free Rice, a brilliant and fun website that fights world hunger while helping you improve your mind. Here's the basic scenario: the website presents a vocabulary word, and four possible definitions. If you choose the correct definition, the site donates 20 grains of rice to the U.N.'s World Food Program. You can keep playing (and donating rice) for as long as you want. The program also determines your vocabulary level based on your answers to the questions. (You can go as high as 50... if you reach that and let me know, you'll get a shout-out in my blog!)

I love this site and the overarching concept. It amazes me that I can help fight hunger (albeit in a small way) by doing something I enjoy. Go check it out! (Thanks, Paj, for the tip.)

As a side note, completely unrelated to ethical eating: I suspect that business models like this, where advertisers are willing to pay for site traffic, are heading for a crash. Haven't we all grown pretty much immune to web advertising? I was on the Free Rice site for ten or twenty minutes yesterday and couldn't name a single advertiser who had paid for my traffic. As much as I like the model, since it supports so much free content, I fear that a new, more intrusive wave of advertising is on the horizon.

The House champions ethical eating (for itself, anyway)

Monday's SF Chronicle featured an article about the House's decision to bring local, sustainable, and organic food into their cafeterias. This more ethical food will be served on compostable plates and eaten with biodegradable silverware (which cries out for a new name... sugarware, anyone?).

This move is a boon for the people who work and eat at the Capitol; they will have access to food that is better for them, better for the environment, and (I suspect) tastier than what they are used to. The switch also benefits local growers and vendors who will help supply Restaurant Associates (the catering contractor) with their sustainable food products.

The article gives Nancy Pelosi most of the credit for the change, since she has spearheaded the "Green the Capitol" initiative. Ironically, Ms. Pelosi is also the person most responsible for the current state of the proposed Farm Bill revision. Many people had high hopes for this year's Farm Bill (which only gets revised every five years). Ever since the 1970's, the Farm Bill has included provisions that provide subsidies and other benefits to corn, soybean and (to a lesser extent) other grain farmers, while excluding most fruit and vegetable growers from those subsidies. These subsidies have been blamed for everything from the current obesity epidemic to the high price of fresh produce relative to, say, a McDonald's hamburger. It seemed that 2007 might finally be the year that the Farm Bill removed those subsidies, or provided increased benefits or support to produce growers (especially organics), or both. After all, the Speaker of the House is a Democrat from California, which grows more than 50% of the nation's fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, even the USDA has acknowledged that fruits and vegetables (taken together) are more important to a healthy diet than whole grains, codifying this belief in their revised food pyramid.

Sadly, Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues did little to change the Farm Bill's status quo. A final bill has not yet been signed (as the House and Senate passed different versions), but the version passed by the House retained the majority of the grain subsidies, while diverting only small amounts of money toward fruits, vegetables, and conservation efforts. Now, I'm sure there were lots of competing interests at stake and that Ms. Pelosi was trying her best to balance those interests. I've read speculation that Pelosi was trying to protect some of the freshman Democrats from the grain-producing states. There are always excuses, always reasons that some important piece of legislation couldn't get passed.

I'm happy for Pelosi, her fellow Representatives, and all the staffers who will get to take advantage of the new cafeteria cuisine. They should keep in mind though, as they bite into their grass fed buffalo medallions with a side of local, organic potatoes and collards, that what they have chosen for themselves, they have denied the common American.

Cancerous red meat!

A new study has been published that finds a correlation between higher consumption of meat with a higher risk for a number of different cancers. (The study's findings were covered by many major news outlets; here's a link to one of them.) In addition to an increased risk of colon cancer (which was already known), red meat has now been linked to lung, liver, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers as well.

The media seem to love stories like this. With the rise of cancer rates in our society, we desperately need to find somewhere to point our fingers. It's the meat! No, the transfats! No, it's the Aspartame! the Teflon!

If we were to listen to every instance of "{insert food or behavior here} causes cancer" and change all of our behaviors accordingly, we would become fat-free, sugar-free vegan raw foodists.

And while that does sound enticing, I'll take some joy with my meal, thank you very much.

Buried in the study but not covered by the media outlets is the following point:

-The quintile with the highest red-meat intake (approx. 1/4 pound per day) also had the highest BMI (body mass index), the lowest number of servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and the lowest percentage of reported physical activity.

As far as I can tell from reading the study, the researchers did not control for any of these factors. (Smoking, on the other hand, was controlled for in the lung cancer findings.) In other words, although the researchers acknowledge the above characteristics of the biggest meat-eaters, they did not isolate any of these factors as possible contributors.

My answer then, is: everything in moderation. I don't think the meat-eaters among us have to worry too much about these dangerous cancers, any more than we should throw away our non-stick frying pans. Certainly most of us could stand to substitute a hearty lentil soup for a Porterhouse steak every now and then, but I don't think we need to become ascetics. If you can find balance in your life, by eating a variety of foods (including fruits and vegetables) in moderation, exercising (both the body and the mind) regularly, and getting enough sleep, I think you're probably doing as much as you should in order to stay well and happy.

my first raw-staurant

A few days ago I ate my first meal at a restaurant specializing in raw foods. I was feeling mildly embarrassed not to have tried raw foods before, since there is so much overlap between raw foodism and some of my other lifestyle choices (for example, practicing yoga).

Now, I know I should not judge a restaurant, let alone a food movement, based on one meal alone. So I'll just present the meal and some of the facts about raw foodism, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

In brief, raw foods (also called living foods) are plants, fruits, nuts, and seeds that have not been cooked past 110 or 120 degrees. (Beyond these temperatures, certain digestive enzymes in the foods begin to break down.) People undertake a raw foods diet for a variety of reasons, including health benefits, weight loss, disease cure or prevention, and environmental concerns. Raw food gurus such as David Wolfe also claim that raw foods make you feel more energized.

(Here's a fun page of "before and after" photos of people who went on raw foods diets.)

So back to Cafe Gratitude, site of my raw food lunch. The first thing you should know is that all of the menu items are "affirmations," and our waitress informed us that when we order, we need to state our affirmation. So instead of saying, "I'll have the soup of the day," you say, "I am thriving." No kidding. Or, stated in the language of Cafe Gratitude: I am serious. (Check out their menu to find your favorite example of this.) I think this is a quirk specific to Cafe Gratitude, and not to raw foodism in general.

After considering my options, I went with "I am celebrating," or in layman's terms, the daily special. On that particular day the special consisted of spring rolls, side salad, and my choice of grain. My spring rolls were made of kale wrapped around cucumber, carrot, green pepper, greens, avocado, and dried cranberries. (Yes, the cranberries seemed a little random to me too.) There was no dipping sauce, just the rolls. My side salad was just mixed greens with some balsamic vinaigrette, and the grain on the side was steamed quinoa.

The salad was delicious. Of course, I eat salads all the time, and there is nothing novel about eating a "raw" salad. My quinoa had been steamed but was otherwise untouched. (Question for ye who know: doesn't steaming something sort of cross the line? Is it really "raw" anymore?) My quinoa really yearned for some olive oil, salt, and a squeeze of lemon. I made it taste better by adding some of the vinaigrette. Finally, the spring rolls. While they definitely felt healthy, they also struck me as... incredibly bland. Where in the raw foods rules does it say you can't flavor your meals? Isn't grey sea salt as raw as they come? Perhaps a chopped up chili pepper?

Janaki, my companion at this meal and sometime-raw foodist, informed me that after you eat enough raw food, the flavors of the foods themselves really start to emerge. In other words, the food itself is flavorful enough to stand on its own, without the assistance of spices or condiments.

I can understand the logic of this, although I think if you're aiming for maximum flavor from raw foods and vegetables, you have to find seasonal, locally-grown produce (disqualifying my spring rolls, since neither avocados nor green peppers is grown in NorCal this late in the year).

(Edit: I just returned from the Temescal (Oakland) farmer's market. To my astonishment, they had green peppers. This confirms that I don't understand the growing seasons in California.)

It's also true that this was my first raw food meal. If I were to commit to, say, eating only raw foods for a week, perhaps by the end of the week I'd feel convinced that my food was flavorful. (Would I also be hallucinating by then?)

Here are two things I can say for my raw food meal:
1) I felt full afterwards, and continued to feel full for the next five hours.
2) It must have been very fiber-rich. My toilet can attest to this.

Both of these points lead me to believe that yes, switching from a typical American diet (lots of meat, dairy, and processed foods) to a raw diet will cause significant weight loss. Common sense also dictates this: if I were to eat mostly fruits and vegetables, I would be likely to consume far fewer calories than if I were to eat, say, quarter-pounders with fries.

However, I can't say I envy raw foodists. There are too many things I would miss: grilled onions, cheese, and chocolate truffles, to name a few. I also think most of the pleasure I derive from eating would disappear. I absolutely adore fresh fruits and vegetables, but I would come to love them a lot less if they were all I had to eat, day in and day out. So I think I'll stick to my omnivore's diet, and while I won't become a regular at Cafe Gratitude, I'm certainly not opposed to trying a "raw" meal again in the future.

If you'd like to read a great article about raw foods, including a balanced perspective of the benefits and risks, here's one from The New York Times.

What's in a name? Part 1: "Natural"

I have an experiment that I'd like you to try. Go to your kitchen, and look for items that have the word "natural" somewhere on their package (preferably the front). Check high and low; in the pantry, refrigerator, and freezer. I'm willing to predict that you'll find a fair number. Next, take each product that calls itself "natural" and read the list of ingredients. Are there any that strike you as... well... unnatural?

I've just tried this experiment here at home. Here are three of the products I found, and my thoughts on each of their claims. (Note that the boldface is my own emphasis.)

1. Barbara's Puffins (Original flavor). Claim: "100% Natural Crunchy Corn Cereal"
Ingredients: Yellow Corn Flour, Corn Bran Flour, Unsulphured Molasses, Oat Flour, Expeller Pressed High Oleic Oil (Canola and/or Sunflower), Salt, Baking Soda, Natural Vitamin E, Vitamin C.

My thoughts: I had to look up what "high oleic oil" was. Basically it comes from rapeseed (canola) or sunflower plants that have been selectively bred to contain higher levels of monounsaturated fats (such as those in olive oil) and lower levels of polyunsaturated and saturated fats. So this is a case of selective breeding, which I admit is natural, and I suppose most people would agree with me, except perhaps creationists. Regarding the Natural Vitamin E: although it may be natural, apparently it is not naturally-occurring in the other cereal ingredients. So Barbara decided to add it to her Puffins to enhance their nutritional profile, even though some scientists question whether isolated vitamins perform as well out of their original context.

2. Brummel & Brown (buttery spread).
Claim: "Made with Natural Yogurt"
Ingredients: Water, Vegetable Oil Blend (Liquid Soybean Oil, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil), Nonfat Yogurt (Cultured Nonfat Milk), Salt, Gelatin, Vegetable Mono and Diglycerides, Soy Lecithin (Potassium Sorbate, Calcium Disodium Edta) used to protect quality, Lactic Acid, Artificial Flavor, Vitamin A (Palmitate), Beta Carotene (for color).

My thoughts: While it may be true that the yogurt component of Brummel & Brown is "natural," this point seems moot, given the predominance of unnatural ingredients in the spread. Partially hydrogenated anything is neither good for us (trans fats! banned in New York restaurants!), nor is it naturally occurring. Soy lecithin, used as a non-spattering agent, must be hydrolyzed enzymatically or fractionated in order to be used in foods. Definitely unnatural. I'm a bit embarrassed that I have this in my fridge.

3. Dr. Praeger's All Natural California Veggie Burgers.
Claim: "All Natural"
Ingredients: Carrots, Onions, String Beans, Soybeans, Zucchini, Oat Bran, Peas, Spinach, Expeller Pressed Canola Oil, Broccoli, Textured Soy Flour, Corn, Oat Fiber, Red Pepper, Arrowroot, Corn Meal, Corn Starch, Garlic, Salt, Parsley, All Natural Vegetable Gum, Black Pepper.

My thoughts: "Vegetable gum" was the only ingredient that stood out to me as possibly a hoax. Trusty Wikipedia tells me that "natural gums are polysaccharides of natural origin... used as thickening agents, gelling agents, emulsifiers, and stabilizers." So I guess vegetable gum, although sort of revolting by name, is natural after all.

By now, you may have begun to sense where I'm headed: the word "natural" on food and beverage packaging is largely unregulated. The USDA, under its Food Safety and Inspection Service, issued a memo in 1982 that explained their definition of "natural" in its use on meat and poultry labels. Here's an excerpt:

"The term natural may be used on labeling for meat and poultry products provided the manufacturer of the products bearing the claim demonstrates that the product does not contain artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient or chemical preservative or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient, and the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed." FSIS' Food Standards and Labeling Division, published Policy Memo 55, dated November 22, 1982

As you can see, there are loopholes galore in this policy, most of which have been exploited in some way or another by manufacturers who are eager to capitalize on growing public hunger for "natural" foods. For instance, many processed foods call themselves "natural" even though they contain high-fructose corn syrup (which is not derived "naturally"). Chicken can be labeled "natural" even if it has been bulked up with a saline solution. Is that really natural? Shouldn't natural mean... occurring in nature?

A year ago, the USDA invited interested parties to share their opinion of how "natural" should be used on food labels; however, as of this writing they have not yet changed the 1982 regulations.

So back to the experiment. Try it, and let me know what you turn up in your kitchen. If you find some unnatural-sounding "natural" foods, let the rest of us know by posting a comment.

If you'd like to read more, CNN has a good article about the war among manufacturers over "natural." Dad, they talk about Tyson. Check it out.

easing into organic foods

I'm a realist. I know that eating organic foods almost always means spending more money, and that as Americans we are very sensitive to the price of our food. (Did you know that, as a nation, we spend a lower percentage of our income on food than nearly any other industrialized nation?) Most of us are not going to wake up tomorrow and start eating all organic foods, all the time- if for no other reason than the sticker shock. So how best to ease into organic foods? Are there certain foods for which it makes more sense to buy organic than others?

There are several different answers to this question, depending on the reason(s) you wish to go organic. Is it to reduce your chemical (pesticide, fungicide) intake? For better nutrition? For taste? For the environment? I've combed the research, and here's what I've come up with.

Pesticides

The USDA and the FDA regularly test produce (as well as soybeans, dairy, animal products, etc) for pesticide residues. According to their most recent findings (from samples taken between 2003 and 2004), the following fruits and vegetables are the most pesticide-laden among conventionally-grown produce. (The Environmental Working Group has labeled these The Dirty Dozen.)

1. Peaches
2. Apples
3. Sweet Bell Peppers
4. Celery
5. Nectarines
6. Strawberries
7. Cherries
8. Lettuce
9. Grapes - Imported
10. Pears
11. Spinach
12. Potatoes

In these tests, 73% of all fruits and vegetables tested showed detectable pesticide residues. On peaches, the worst of the bunch, pesticides were found on 97% of the samples. Note that the USDA washed and peeled produce such as apples and potatoes before testing them. Imagine how high the levels are for those of us (me) who regularly eat the peels. Yikes!

Fortunately, the news is not all bad; there are some fruits and vegetables that have low levels of residual pesticides, even when grown conventionally. These "cleaner" foods include: onions, avocados, pineapple, mangoes, kiwi, bananas, asparagus, cabbage, and broccoli. For example, only 0.2% of the onions tested showed residual pesticides. I guess there's some relief in that.

(Note: if you're looking to reduce your pesticide-intake level, another good solution is to eat local foods. These foods are much less likely to have been treated with post-harvest pesticides than the food that has to travel 1,500 miles to reach you.)

Health/Nutrition

Aside from the benefits of not ingesting all the chemicals stated above, there are some other nutritional benefits to choosing organic.

• Organic produce contains up to 50% more antioxidants (read the findings here)
  


• Organic milk has 50-80% more antioxidants than conventional milk, as well as higher levels of Vitamin E (Ibid)
  


• Organic produce has higher levels of a variety of vitamins and minerals (Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia, The Soil Association of the United Kingdom)

Taste

Consensus on the web seems to be that, in blind taste tests, most organic foods taste about the same as conventional foods. The exceptions seem to be:

• Eggs. But often these are not merely "organic" eggs, but cage-free, free-range, life-loving eggs. Still, they seem to beat conventional eggs hands-down.


• Peanut butter: here, the main taste difference is between natural (sometimes organic) peanut butter, i.e. roasted peanuts and salt, vs conventional, Skippy-style peanut butter, with the partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats!) and high fructose corn syrup.

In my opinion, if taste is your main reason for going organic, then you'd be better served by choosing local, seasonal foods, whether or not they're organic. Maybe some time soon I'll conduct my own taste test to pit conventional vs. organic foods vs. local foods. If and when that happens, I'll share the results in this blog.

Environmental Impact

If you're concerned about the environment, then you want to give up those foods that do the most harm on a macroeconomic scale (in terms of acres planted, or quantities consumed). In other words, nectarines may be "dirtier" than potatoes, but potatoes cover thousands of times the arable land that nectarines do. Based on this thinking, then your organic choices might include:

1. Organic milk
2. Organic potatoes
3. Organic apples
4. Organic peanut butter
5. Organic beef

(Read one doctor's opinion of why these organic choices are important.)

As a final note, the research seems to agree that if there's one time in your life that it's most important to consume organic foods, it's from birth to age three. This is because carcinogens (including the pesticides applied in conventional agriculture) are up to 10x as potent in babies than in adults. So if you have an infant or toddler, your best way to ease into organic would be to choose organic for your child.

Good luck and let me know how "easing into organic" goes for you!

confusion about eating seasonally

I went to the farmer's market on Thursday with a list of several vegetables that I needed for a recipe. I know, this is exactly what I said not to do in an earlier post: don't have an agenda when you go to the farmer's market- just let the food speak to you. Well, as with most things in life, this is easier said than done (although I commend Alice Waters for working in that way.)

In my defense, the recipe I had in mind was chicken pot pie, which I consider to be an appropriate seasonal dish in late autumn. I was sure that I'd have no problem finding the vegetables I was after: celeriac (aka celery root), parsnips, and sweet potatoes. These are all root vegetables, and to my thinking, root vegetables are ripe in the late autumn and winter months.

You can imagine my surprise when, instead of finding the root vegetables I desired, I instead encountered fresh, beautiful strawberries. In November! How could this be? I grew up in Virginia, where strawberries have a very definite 4-6 week season, usually lasting from early June to mid-July. I imagined these were hydroponic strawberries (if such a thing exists), or that the wool was being pulled over my eyes in some fashion. First, I tasted a strawberry. Delicious! The very essence of a fruit at the height of its season. So I asked the farmer, (a gentleman from Lucero Organic Farms in Lodi), "How is it that you have fresh strawberries in November?" He told me that in the Central Valley, the strawberry season typically lasts from March through December, or until "the first really bad weather." Amazing!

Knowing which fruits and vegetables are in season is undeniably challenging in 21st century America, when our grocery stores stock the same produce year-round, often failing to mention the geographical origin of that produce. Our best strategy, then, is to have a general sense of what should be in season at what time of year, and then seek information that confirms the produce was not shipped from across the globe. Right now, for instance, the heirloom tomatoes at the Berkeley farmer's market are still seasonal and locally grown, as hard as it is for me to believe that a tomato can be fresh and ripe in November. At my Safeway, on the other hand, the only heirloom tomatoes to be found have two critical pieces of information on the label: "Emeril's" and "Mexico." The first piece tells me that these tomatoes are caught in a large corporate supply chain, which at some point included allowing Emeril Lagasse to brand its tomatoes. The second tells me that those particular tomatoes are neither local nor seasonal in Northern California.

(As a quick aside: in researching the origin of the Emeril's heirloom tomatoes, I couldn't find anything on Emeril's website. I did learn, however, that Emeril was the first celebrity chef to have his food consumed in space. I guess he's not too concerned about the local foods movement!)

In a future post I plan to give a "seasonality chart" of fruits and vegetables in North America, to be used only as a rough guide. The best guide, of course, is the farmers and growers from your region.

P.S. I found the sweet potato at the farmer's market, and I ended up substituting turnips for parsnips. I found some California-grown celeriac at the Berkeley Bowl, but I'm still not sure why none of the growers at the farmer's market had any to sell me. Oh well.

rBST follow-up: Starbucks and Chipotle go hormone-free

I thought I'd let you know, as a follow-up to an earlier post, that Chipotle has stopped using rBST in all their dairy products. (Chipotle has long been a leader in the fast-food industry in terms of ethical treatment of animals. All of their pork and much of their chicken/beef is naturally raised, without hormones or antibiotics, and with plenty of room to roam or graze.) Read the article about Chipotle's decision.

Starbucks has also caved to consumer demand and committed to going 100% rBST-free in all of its "core dairy products" (which they define as "liquid milk, half and half, whipping cream and egg nog) by the end of 2007. Read Starbucks' letter to Food and Water Watch. (As an aside: who knew that egg nog was a "core dairy product"???)

Hurray for consumer activism!

more ethical-eating books

In reviewing my posts, I realized that I hadn't mentioned two of the books that have been most influential both in my own eating choices and in my decision to start this blog. You've no doubt heard of both of them, as they were both bestsellers.

The first book, which I absolutely think you should read if you're at all interested in this subject, is The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan.

I read this book last year, and it changed how I think and feel about almost everything I eat. Pollan examines the people and processes behind every step of our food chain. The "four meals" of the title are fast food, organic, locally farmed, and hunted/gathered. Among the information I learned from this book includes:

-Over 25% of the SKUs (items) in a supermarket contain corn or a corn-based derivative

-"Organic" foods do not always deserve a place on the righteousness pedestal (more about this in a future post, I promise!)

-Many small farmers do not use pesticides, antibiotics, or other chemicals, and yet still cannot (or choose not to) be labeled "organic."

Aside from being chock-full of great information, this book is a captivating read. Michael Pollan teaches here in Berkeley- you can learn more about him at his website. If you don't have time to read the book and would prefer just a few of his articles, my favorites can be found here and here.

The second book, which feels a little less like a research paper and more like a good ol' fashioned ethical-food yarn, is Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life by Barbara Kingsolver. She describes a year in which she, her husband, and her two daughters commit to eating only locally grown/raised foods. Her book really made me think about what it means to eat seasonally, and how difficult (but noble) it would be to be a locavore. Her book even includes recipes, and her husband and older daughter contribute to the writing. It's an easy, enjoyable and enlightening read.

And there you have it- few recommendations for Christmas presents or for your next trip to the library.

sustainable foods search engine

Hey folks!

I just wanted to tell you about the newest feature of my blog- a search engine from the good people at Eat Well Guide and Sustainable Table. Look to the right hand side of the page (at the top of my blog) and you'll see the orange search box where you can search for restaurants, stores and farms in your community that offer sustainable foods. Just enter your zip code and voilà! You'll have a list of places in your neighborhood where you can purchase or eat ethically-grown (or raised) foods. I'm excited because my search turned up a restaurant right near me that I didn't even know about, that apparently offers comfort food from happy cows and pigs. Pretty cool.

I hope you find the search engine as useful as I do. Let me know how you like it!

dairy products demystified

If you're a label-reader, as I am, then you may have come across the following message on one of your dairy products: "Does not contain the growth hormone rBST." This message is generally followed by an asterisk, with a fine-print footnote that says, "Federal tests have proven that there is no significant difference between rBST treated milk and non-rBST treated milk."

This message strikes me as fairly cryptic. If there is no difference between treated and untreated milk, then why brag about it? But can it be possible that there is no difference? What is rBST, anyway? Should I be avoiding dairy products from rBST-fed cows?

rBST stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin. It's also known as rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone. Basically, it's a synthetic version of a naturally-occurring growth hormone that aids cows in lactation. Cows that are administered a synthetic version are able to lactate longer and thereby produce more milk over their lactation cycle than cows that rely only on the naturally-occurring BST. If you are beginning to think this sounds like a clever way for industrial agriculture to increase their yields, you're onto something. In fact, rBST was developed by Monsanto and sells under the brand name Posilac.

With rBST, as is so often the case with industrial agriculture, steps taken by large corporations to increase yield and productivity on the farm run counter to basic concerns about animal welfare, human health and environmental protection. Let's take these concerns one by one.

Animal Welfare

Cows treated with rBST are up to 50% more likely to develop "lameness" (hoof problems), mastitis (inflamation of the udder), and failure to conceive.

Human Health

Monsanto goes to great lengths to convince consumers that there is no difference between rBST-treated dairy products and untreated products. However, concerned citizens' groups such as The Center for Food Safety point to research that shows that rBST-treated milk demonstrates higher levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Higher levels of IGF are correlated to higher incidence of breast, prostate and colon cancers.

Environmental Concerns

Every time we administer antibiotics, artificial hormones or other chemicals to livestock, residual amounts end up in our water supply. (This concern was one of the leading drivers of the original "organic" movement.)

Other food for thought

No other industrialized country in the world allows the sale of rBST-treated dairy products.

So where does that leave us? Industrial agriculture's (read: Monsanto's) argument is that rBST increases milk yield, which is good for farmers (they make more profits) and good for consumers (the cost of milk is kept lower). I think these claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Monsanto is the entity that stands to profit the most from sales of rBST. When an equation exists that says farmers must increase production so that consumer prices stay low, then the only farmers who stand to gain are the largest farmers, not the small or medium-sized farmers. Finally, if we take costs to human health in consideration, then the true price of rBST-treated dairy products is much higher than the sticker price we face at the grocery stores.

For those of us living in Northern California, it seems that most of our milk is already rBST-free. Indeed, Trader Joe's, Safeway and Whole Foods (my main grocery stores, when I'm not shopping at the farmer's markets) have all banned rBST milk (at least in my region). (Read the Chronicle article here.) But when I'm in other parts of the country and have to decide between milk from treated or untreated cows, I'll gladly spend the extra few cents to keep the artificial hormone out of the cows' diet and thereby out of mine.

shrewdfood books for my birthday

Happy Birthday to me!!!
It is indeed a very happy birthday because my parents (who know me so well!) gave me three delightful-looking books, all about food. Excellent! Two in particular deserve mention here, since they are relevant to my blog:

1. The Art of Simple Food: Notes, Lessons, and Recipes from a Delicious Revolution by Alice Waters. If you've been reading along, you know how I feel about lovely Ms. Waters. I can't wait to read this book! I think the back cover nicely sums up both the philosophy of the book, and the philosophy I'm trying to eat by:



"Eat locally & sustainably
Eat seasonally
Shop at farmers' markets
Plant a garden
Conserve, compost & recycle
Cook simply
Cook together
Eat together
Remember food is precious"

2. Super Natural Cooking: Five Ways To Incorporate Whole and Natural Ingredients into Your Cooking by Heidi Swanson. Heidi is the blogger behind Mighty Foods, one of my favorite food blogs. But little did I know she has a book out- and a delightful-looking book at that. I'll be sure to blog my reviews, after I've read them.




Thanks, Mom and Dad!

Love, your Halloween-baby

saying no to CAFOs

The cognitive dissonance was too much. In the past few months I've driven I-5 between Los Angeles and San Francisco at least 6 times, and each time I've had to pass two CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations- more commonly known as "factory farms") right along the highway. I look out at the cows, terribly unhappy cows, standing in their own manure, waiting out their days at the corn-filled feed trough, never to graze again on their beloved grass, the food they were meant to eat. And I realize that every day I eat beef that was not grass-finished, I am directly supporting these animals' misery. And yet I have continued to turn a blind eye, ignoring their suffering because it was convenient for me to do so.

Well, no more. As of a week ago I decided to give up factory-farmed beef. When I go to the grocery store, all this decision means is that I'll spend extra (and have to look a bit harder) when shopping for beef. But the other implications of my decision include: no more Trader Joe's carne asada, no more In-N-Out, and no more eating beef of any kind at almost all restaurants. (Soon I hope to publish a list of links to restaurants that offer only grass-finished beef on their menus.)

Needless to say, G thinks I'm crazy (especially for giving up In-N-Out). But what I think is crazy is how we Americans have allowed these farms to develop in the first place, let alone become the dominant system of agriculture in the U.S. And since not even Nancy Pelosi can get a better farm bill passed, I'll vote with my wallet instead.

(Photo by Kent Kessinger and used by permission.)

sustainable food in a corporate cafeteria

My friend Jon and I were recently discussing how a great business (both in terms of doing well in the world and meeting a market need) would be delivering healthy, sustainably produced, organic meals to local office buildings. Think of the lunch options that most corporate employees face: either an on-site cafeteria (not usually a nexus of sustainable or healthy fare), or the restaurants available in a few-block radius, perhaps offering gyros or subs, sushi or pizza. In short, people with an interest in ethical eating might have few satisfying choices while at work.

It turns out that the folks at Wired have beaten us to the idea and are already treating their employees to just such sustainable food. Chef Phil Ferrato has been cooking breakfast and lunch in the Wired cafeteria for ten years, delivering simple but satisfying meals sourced from local, sustainable ingredients. (Read about one blogger's experience here.) Kudos to Chef Ferrato for implementing this practice, and to the head(s) of Wired for having chosen him for their corporate cafeteria. I'm willing to bet that the reputation of their cafeteria has done wonders for Wired's recruiting efforts. In that case, Wired validates the adage that treating your employees well will reap its own rewards.

alice at the greenmarket

I've just watched a video at the New York Times website in which the videographer follows Alice Waters around the Union Square Greenmarket as she describes her approach- what she's thinking, how she chooses what she'll buy, what she looks for, and how she brings it all together. You can watch it here. For those who don't know, Alice Waters is a goddess in the food world- especially with regards to the organic/local/sustainable movements. She founded Chez Panisse in Berkeley (my new hometown!) in 1971 to highlight the pleasures of eating seasonal, organic foods at the height of their freshness. My friend and I are planning to make our first visit to Chez Panisse next week... I'll keep you posted about our experience there.

Anyway, what I found most interesting in the video of Alice is when she describes how she chooses which items she'll buy at the market. She makes two points that I'd like to comment on. First, she says, "I never have anything in mind when I come to the market- it's like a blank slate."

I think this approach to food is typical of the best professional chefs and very atypical of the rest of us (for worse, not for better). As an example, how often do you choose a recipe or plan a menu, then list all the ingredients you'll need to buy, and then go to the store or farmer's market (good for you!) to purchase them? I do it all the time- it is my regular process when I know I'll be preparing a meal. This approach works for us either because a) we already know what fruits and vegetables are in season and have planned accordingly, or b) we have grown accustomed to finding whatever we want, whenever we want it. Confess: have you ever tried to eat asparagus outside of the months of April and May? Then you weren't eating seasonally, and your asparagus either came from the other side of the world (lots of fossil fuels involved in shipping it to your town) or from a hothouse (huge energy consumer).

Alice Waters, on the other hand, goes in without preconceptions. Even if she suspects that zucchini will be in season, she waits to see whether there is fresh, delicious-looking zucchini at the market. Perhaps on a given day, the eggplant will look better. This is the advantage of going in without preconceived ideas.

I think we would all do better by ourselves, by our local farmers, and by our environment if we were to aim to make our meal choices based on what is freshest and most readily available at the market, rather than deciding our preferences in advance and requiring our markets to supply them. This approach does require a basic knowledge of what you'll be able to do with the fruits and vegetables that you find- occasionally difficult if you don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of recipes in your head like Ms. Waters does.

Next, Alice says, "I'm looking for food that speaks to me- that I'm looking at it and it's calling to me. It's something about the aliveness of it."

Here too, Alice is onto something. She is in touch with the food- something that many of us have lost. In the U.S., the ingredients in your dinner have been shipped on average 1500 miles to reach you (perhaps less for us lucky Californians, but we're talking averages here). No wonder most tomatoes in the supermarkets taste like watery cardboard. Do you think Alice would ever accept such tomatoes? No way. Now, if we could make ourselves listen to fruits and vegetables and only accept those that really speak to us, we'd enjoy our food more (and probably be healthier eaters). It certainly helps to start by shopping at farmer's markets- I know that much more food speaks to me there than at the local Safeway. But even if you're constrained to shopping at grocery stores, you can still use your senses (literally). Stop and smell the tomatoes. If they don't have that fresh, ripe tomato smell, don't bother to buy them. Ditto peaches. If the peppers are wilted, they will have lost most of their flavor. In short, if the food looks sad, it will make you sad too. Don't buy it. Chances are, it was picked weeks ago, shipped many miles to arrive at your supermarket, and has now been sitting on those shelves countless days, waiting for some sad sap to buy it. Don't be that sap! Better to alter your recipe or menu plan to incorporate fresh, happy ingredients than to use the tired fruits and veggies that your wrote on your grocery list.

welcome to shrewdfood!

Gentle reader, welcome to shrewdfood, a space for me to wax poetic, prosaic or downright ineloquent about the ethics of eating. I first started thinking about this topic several years ago, after reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. Before that book, the only "ethical" consideration that I had given to my food intake was carnivorism vs. vegetarianism vs. veganism. And without much thought or research to back me up, I came down firmly on the side of my carnivorism. (Still do, but I feel slightly more researched now.)

Reading Fast Food Nation gave me some insight into the ethical quandaries that come hand in hand with our eating decisions. In his mission to expose some of the shadier practices of the fast-food industry, Schlosser covered a whole array of topics, from animal welfare, to the conditions of employees at slaughterhouses, to the use of antibiotics in feedlots, to the wages and treatment of fast-food employees. I was alternately shocked, startled, saddened, or angered. But my new knowledge did not, for the most part, change my behavior: I still bought store-brand ground beef or Tyson's chicken at the supermarket, ate at Subway or Burger King if the occasion arose. My food choices were driven by three factors: cost, convenience, and health-consciousness (which, at the time, meant low-fat... more on health issues in later entries!). Although my eyes had been opened by Fast Food Nation, I found it easier to pretend I didn't know the back story of those chickens, pigs, and cattle.

Now, six years and many books, articles, lectures, and movies later, I am both better-informed and even more confused. I have begun to change my eating habits in a way that Schlosser probably intended, but I find it surprisingly difficult at times, in ways that I'll detail in future posts. Meanwhile, the debate surrounding the ethics of eating has grown in scale and in prominence. Today's debate is no longer as simple as vegetarian vs. carnivore; instead, we must make informed decisions about words and labels such as natural, organic, raw, cage-free, free-range, local, sustainable, seasonal, and fair-trade (or their alternatives, which usually don't appear on labels: corn-fed, factory-farmed, CAFO, inhumane, caged, antibiotic-ridden, chemically enhanced, etc). With this blog, I hope to help myself and interested readers make sense of our food choices. I plan to write about my daily experiences, dilemmas, and decisions with regards to ethical eating. I hope you'll come along for the ride.