The Mercury News - a local Silicon Valley newspaper - recently reported the popularity of healthy cafeteria menus with the schools’ students. In fact, school lunch participation has gone up in the two school districts (Los Gatos and Saratoga Union School Districts) that have teamed up with Revolution Foods - a school catering company that sources local foods, uses 85% organic ingredients, and teams up with Whole Foods to broaden their purchasing options.

Since the switch, students have commended the changes, saying that they feel better when they eat healthy foods. While Northern California is known for its enlightened attitudes towards eating, these schools are in communities with documented obesity problems. These are not officially considered pilot programs, but we should showcase them as such: if they can do it, any school district can do it.

Across the country, Pennsylvania students chose healthier options when nutrition information was showcased along with the buffet-style trays of food. This 2005 experiment was courtesy of a research team from Penn State University and has been held up as an indication that, contrary to popular belief, children and adolescents do want to eat what’s healthy, as long as it is convenient and available to them.

Given the partnership between private suppliers and school districts, perhaps a proliferation of such catering companies would encourage more school districts to wrench themselves from the jaws of Pepsi Co et al. In this rare instance, supply might inform demand.

(Photo by Peter Cosgrove for AP)

Researchers at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) have compiled a list of all food additives currently in use, rated by safety level. Some of the additives are considered safe, others warrant moderation, some are unsafe to certain people and quite a few should be avoided altogether. Along with the rating, each additive’s description includes its origin, use and where it is most likely to be found. And while I am certainly not rushing to incorporate the described “perfectly safe” chemicals into my diet, I am glad to have a go-to database that explains what all of these chemicals are supposed to do, what they are made from and where we can find them. At least this way, I can pick my poison.

You can see the list here.

We often think of small farmers and food artisans as immune to the undignified fallout of mechanized food production. Instead, our romanticized view imagines century’s old techniques, the pure ingredients of yesteryear and a complete unfamiliarity with chemical additives. But there is a danger to thinking that traditional food production exists in a vacuum.

Dioxins are pervasive toxicants that are emitted through the processes of several industries, though primarily through garbage incineration, oil refining, paper mills and metal smelters. The plain fact is, we all breath in dioxins and they stay in our body, dormant in our fatty tissue. This storage really doesn’t pose a problem (at least none that has been recorded), but we do get a harmful amount of dioxins from eating the fatty tissue of other animals. Buffalo milk, used for its silken, rich texture is particularly fatty. Couple this with a major garbage disposal problem in Campania and you’ve got one toxic piece of formaggio.

Dioxins are hormone-mimickers. They enter healthy cells, attach to their receptors and infiltrate the cell’s chromosomes where they can access the genetic makeup of the cell. In doing this, dioxins convert any type of cell to genetically resemble a hormonal cell. With an imbalance of hormonal cells, the endocrine system can malfunction, causing endocrine cancers like breast, testicular and uterine cancer.

Studies also suggest that dioxins are partially responsible for the growing gender imbalance in the global birthrate. A study from the IntrAmericas Centre of Environment and Health in Ontario found that the established sex ratio of 103:100 males to females born turned into the very skewed 46:54 in communities with dioxin emitters up to 25 kilometers away. These dioxin emitters were disproportionately urban and medical waste incinerating facilities. This is a problem as boys are more vulnerable than girls to accidental death. So much so, that by adolescence, the natural 103:100 ratio evens out to 100:100.

What makes dioxins so scary is not their cancer causing properties, their cellular invasion or their effect on gender imbalance. Instead, what I find terrifying is the complete lack of control I have over my consumption of them. A person can eat (as I do) only organic, free-range meat; only the freshest, most local and non-toxic yogurt on the market. Heck, we can even grow our own chickens. But protection from dioxins can not be achieved by making good food choices. We need to enact large-scale legislation to eliminate dioxins at the source by using fewer non-biodegradable materials of the sort that need incinerating and by eliminating paper, metal and oil industry practices that emit toxicants in such high numbers. We need to ask for regular atmospheric, soil and animal testing for dioxins. What else can we do? No meal is an island.

(Photo courtesy of pdphoto.org)

The Nelson’s on sustainable biodiesel:
I had the privilege of interviewing both Willie & Annie last Fall while they were in NY for Farm Aid. They hosted a rockin’ event at the Hard Rock Cafe in Times Square to benefit Annie’s Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance.

Check out the interview with Willie & Annie Nelson and see what Woody Harrelson, Daryl Hannah and others had to say about sustainability.

When I take stock, I realize I can do without most of the things I buy. Yesterday I bought gas, printer cartridges, and mad libs for my daughter. Food was the only necessity I spent money on. But if David Korten is onto something, access to most of that food is in danger.

Consider: by most estimates, 98% of the food consumed by Americans comes from the industrial food system. This system relies on commodities, factory farms, international production, extensive processing facilities, long-distance transport, storage, refrigeration, and massive inputs of fossil fuel. All kinds of disruptions threaten the safety, cost, and availability of food dependent on this long chain.

Just one example illustrates how relying on industrial agriculture to feed us puts us at risk. Science Daily summarized a string recent reports examining the impacts of climate change on global food production. These reports warn that “global agriculture could go into steep, unanticipated declines…due to complications scientists have so far inadequately considered.” Climate change may cause world food supplies to crash in the coming decades due to the seasonal extremes of heat, drought, and ecological upsets that will accompany the predicted 1 to 5 degrees centigrade temperature rise. Translation: global food supply is in danger in the coming decades. Meaning soon.

So what does David Korten recommend? Self-reliant communities. And the first thing each community needs is food.

Looking in my fridge for things we could still get in the event of globalized economic or agricultural meltdown, I found some good news:

• Milk, from a dairy 20 miles south of us.
• Potatoes, from a nearby organic farmer.
• Blueberries, frozen last summer from a U-pick farm just outside town.
• Lamb and honey, from beekeeper friends who raise lambs and sell honey from their 40-acre farm.
• Lots of products from our region, the Pacific Northwest, including apples, cheese, black beans, onions, frozen veggies, pears, and potato chips.

Not enough to live on perhaps, but it’s a start. It being March, spring greens should be available soon from nearby farmers. I have lettuce and pea starts on the deck. Tomorrow morning is the last winter farmer’s market of the year, and I’ll go and buy what I can. It will comfort me to know that our kitchen is stocked with food that comes from nearby. Even more important, buying local food will support and strengthen those farmers, food producers, and stores that will help feed us even if things in the larger world do begin to fall apart.

I really don’t know if civilization is beginning to unravel. But it seems like a very good idea to help rebuild local food systems that will sustain us if it is. Spring is a great time of year to begin. You can: shop at your local farmer’s market, join a CSA, ask at nearby restaurants and grocery stores for local foods, plant a victory garden, plant a fruit tree, start a compost pile, or join a nearby food security organization. All these things will add to your enjoyment of food and your connection to your community. But even if you don’t believe me, do it anyway, just in case.

Beth’s blog is The Expatriate’s Kitchen, “Musings on food and life, with my original recipes, and a cynical wit as sharp as my ten-inch French knife”.

beth-bader-final.mp3

Urban Agriculturalist is a series on the ways city and suburb dwellers use their land as a food resource.

What would you say if a farmer knocked on your door and asked to rent your backyard to grow raddichio or sweet peas? My guess is, you might inquire about his medication. But renting backyards is exactly what Wally Satzewich and Gail Vandersteen of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan started doing when they realized that their small-scale urban crops fetched a far higher profit than the large-scale vegetable growing that they did on a 20-acre farm north of the city.

People can’t believe their success with urban plots, says Vandersteen, “They think it’s too much work, but the truth is, this is much less work than mechanized, large-scale farming. We used to have a tractor to hill potatoes and cultivate, but we find it’s more efficient to do things by hand.” With fewer pests and gentler winds, empty urban lots sound downright ideal. But how could it be more profitable?

The operation costs are really low. City water management provides irrigation, there is plenty of compost around, the urban setting repels pests, and the market is not far away. With only 1/2 an acre, meted out in small plots, all the harvesting can be done by hand. And because the plots are usually unused anyway, rental costs are minimal. Many people volunteer their backyards in exchange for fresh produce and those who charge do so minimally.

So, less work and more profit sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Especially when you consider the environmental benefits, including minimal transportation to market, reuse of developed land instead of cutting new forest, and less machinery used to cultivate. So far, there are two prototype half-acre farms, Philadelphia’s Somerton Tanks Farm and Wally’s Urban Market Garden in Saskatoon. But Satzewich and Vandersteen are trying to change that with their company, SPIN.

SPIN stands for Small Plot Intensive - a farming system that maximizes profits by focusing on one crop, one small piece of land. The company offers guidance to first time growers - referred to here as “first-generation farmers” - on how to maximize profits and land use. You can download farming guides based on your plans: there is one for hobby farming, which is based on a model of $10-20,000 gross annual sales for each 1/8 acre; or you can get a guide for the Deluxe Farm Model, a $65,000 operation on 1 acre of land. There are specialty guides for different crops - leafy greens, salad mix, garlic, flowers or carrots and potatoes. Along with technical advice, SPIN offers guidance in marketing, work schedules or investments for the would-be urban farmer.

Hopefully this idea will catch on. With a smart, franchise-inspired business plan and a significant amount of money to be made, we could all see a spike in local, homegrown produce in the near future.

(Photo Courtesy of SPIN)

Haunting all this milk, filled with calcium, protein, and fat, has been a single question: what is the real story behind recombinant bovine growth hormone?

If you read about food in general, or genetically engineered organisms specifically, it can’t have escaped your notice that there is a battle raging in this country about the use of rBGH in dairy cows. It’s a battle being fought in grocery stores, state legislatures, the corporate offices of Monsanto Corporation and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Consumer groups, dairy farmers, animal welfare folks, and anti-cancer activists are involved. Because of all the milk products we consume, and my passion for food issues, I decided to try to shed some light on recombinant bovine growth hormone (also known as rBGH or rBST).

What is it? rBGH is a genetically engineered variant of a growth hormone in cows. When injected into dairy cows, it increases milk production by as much as 10-15%.

What is its history? The FDA approved the use of rBGH in 1993, and it has been controversial ever since. It is manufactured by the Monsanto Corporation, under the name Posilac. Its use is banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Canada, and many Americans are working to make it illegal. Key U.S. organizations campaigning to stop rBGH include Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, and the Consumer’s Union. In response to consumer demand, an increasing number of U.S. food retailers are rejecting milk from cows treated with rBGH, including Starbucks, Kroger, and Wal-Mart.

Why is it so controversial? There are three chief concerns about the use of rBGH: harm to treated cows, antibiotic resistance, and an increased risk of certain cancers in humans.

Studies have documented that cows injected with rBGH have a 50% increase in lameness, a 25% increase in udder infections, multiple reproductive problems, and shortened life-spans.

Because of higher rates of infection, rBGH cows are treated with more antibiotics, which contributes to the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria, a serious and growing public health threat.

Finally, opponents of rBGH say it causes elevated levels of an insulin-like growth hormone, IFG-1, in treated cows’ milk. According to Dr. Jenny Pompilio, with Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, elevated IGF-1 levels have been linked to breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in humans. Monsanto vehemently denies there is any difference between milk from cows treated with rBGH and cows that aren’t treated.

What is happening now? In response to growing consumer demand for milk from rBGH-free cows, Monsanto has launched a nation-wide effort to make it illegal to label dairy products that come from untreated cows. They have funded a thinly disguised “grassroots” organization, AFACT, to protect the “rights” of diary farmers to continue injecting cows with rBGH. State-by-state, they have tried to make such labeling illegal, and they have even tried to get the FDA to ban rBGH-free labels nationally. However, there is growing alarm about both the human health threats and the animal cruelty issues surrounding rBGH use. According to a USDA survey, about 17% of dairy cows were injected with rBGH in 2007, down from 22% in 2002.

The bottom line? We should never introduce something into our food system that increases the suffering of livestock we keep, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and possibly cancer risk. As more and more U.S. consumers and food retailers are rejecting milk from cows treated with rBGH, I urge you to do the same.

For a partial list of rBGH-free dairy producers:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/rbghlist.cfm

http://www.oregonpsr.org/programs/dairyguide.htm

Certified organic milk must come from cows not treated with rBGH.

According to the Humane Society, 17% of the U.S. beef supply comes from spent dairy cows. These cows no longer produce financially viable quantities of milk and are sold at steep discount to slaughterhouses. In fact, prices for dairy cows can be as little as one-tenth the price of a well-fed beef steer on the meat market. This partially has to do with net meat gain: the dairy cow is bred for optimum lactation, not muscle mass. The price differential also has to do with condition: the dairy cows tend to be older and more feeble, depleted of calcium and afflicted with a multitude of bacterial infections, the result of sedentary, unifunctional lives.

Because dairy cows stand all day, the damp manure and hay contribute to bacterial growth on the hooves, known as foot rot. The constant handling of their udders can cause mastisis - another bacterial infection. Still another common malady is Johne’s disease - a wasting illness that comes from the same bacteria family - Mycobacterium - as tuberculosis and leprosy. Johne’s disease, like foot rot and mastisis, is usually the result of improper contact with manure: cows contract it by eating food and drinking water that is contaminated with manure in which the bacteria is present. The infection is highly contagious and spreads quickly as up to 500 billion organisms can be shed through fecal movement by a single infected animal in one day.

The bacteria is resistant to disinfectants and harsh environmental conditions and does not trigger a response from the immune system, which is the most common way the body resists infections. This means that young cows - those with the most robust immune systems - do not have a defense against Johne’s disease. Additionally, most cows with Johne’s disease do not have any symptoms or signs of infection. Those that do have such signs (which include weight loss and severe diarrhea) usually develop them later in life.

Alberta’s Agricultural Ministry estimates that 35% of dairy cows that suffer from Johne’s disease release the bacteria through their milk. And, because of the bacteria’s hardiness in harsh environments, it very often survives the pasteurization process and enters the commercial milk supply. A 2004 study by Dr. Jay Ellingson at the Marshfield Clinic Laboratories in Wisconsin, found that 2.8% of his 702 samples from top milk producing states (California, Minnesota and Wisconsin) contained Johne’s Disease bacteria that was alive and capable of multiplying.

While some farmers, veterinarians and doctors have long suspected a link between this bovine illness and intestinal ailments in humans, it hasn’t been until recently that a connection was established. The data has focused on the correlation between Johne’s and on particular human ailment, Crohn’s Disease. Crohn’s Disease is a chronic inflammatory intestinal disease that causes wasting in humans. According to the Paratuberculosis Awareness and Research Association, over half a million Americans suffer from it and the rate of diagnosis is steadily increasing, particularly in young people. An estimated 20,000 Americans are diagnosed each year.

Recent epidemiological studies found DNA belonging to the Johne’s Disease bacteria - Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis - in Crohn’s tissue, which is obviously a strong indication of association. The study isn’t considered scientifically conclusive, though, because researchers haven’t yet determined a causal role for Johne’s. For an excellent rundown of all current scientific data on the connection, read this article.

Studies have only been conducted on milk, but the bacteria is present in blood serum and thus can potentially spread through meat consumption as well. When discount dairy cows are sold at the meat market, the introduction of Johne’s Disease bacteria could be an additional concern. Hopefully, with further research, a more confirmative correlation can be drawn and we can begin to eradicate Johne’s Disease from our cattle and Crohn’s Disease among ourselves. In the meantime, more responsible and humane dairy farming practices such as isolating cow dung and manure from the food and water supply (not to mention the watershed! what about poor wild ruminants like deer and elk?) would be a good start. And finally, let’s stop selling sick cows on the meat market. We deserve better than downer burgers.

While there is a vaccination available for livestock in the U.S., Europe and New Zealand, there are concerns that it disrupts tuberculosis testing in farm animals and that it causes severe rejection reactions in some animals and humans.

See, I’ve got kids? And, see…they’re kind of…energetic enough? I mean really, truly. Spend five seconds in my house and you will see: they are doing just fine bouncing off the walls of their own accord. So, I’ll thank the world for not encouraging them to bounce off the ceiling, as well.

Oh, but I can‘t thank the world, because apparently the world is instead choosing to fill them with caffeine when I’m not around.

As this great article from Metroactive explains, “these days, constraints on caffeine consumption for kids and young teens are nonexistent. Kids are having caffeine early and often.” It’s not just in their drinks, apparently. Candy bars? Increasingly filled with the stuff.

Now, the question that kept going through my mind as I read this was “have these people ever been around kids?”

But apparently they have; the Metroactive article notes that it’s not just nasty food marketers that are jacking our kids up. Apparently competitive-minded parents are happily showing up at sports events with high-caffiene drinks or packages of uber-charged candy and goo to help their kids have an edge on the field.

Thanks to folks like that, turbo-charged goodies are becoming big business.

Personally, I’m wondering where our sanity has gone. But I don’t have time to contemplate it, as my kids are now scaling the side of our house. Excuse me while I go try to catch them.

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

How does food policy impact the safety of what we eat?
I mean, it’s just legislation, right? Laws that are supposed to keep the food supply safe. The basis for these laws was established in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt in response to the publication of Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. Ironically, one of these laws, the Meat Inspection Act, was supposed to eradicate the use of “4-D” cattle in meats, meaning dead, diseased, decaying and downed. Over 100 years later we are still facing the same issues.

The other act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, was designed to insure the safety of drugs and non-meat food items. However, the two agencies overlap. A raw egg, in the shell, is the responsibility of the FDA. Once the shell is broken, the USDA is in charge. If a processed sandwich is to be inspected, the USDA would have jurisdiction over the meat, the FDA over the bread. Makes all kind of sense, right?

Learn what you need to know about food safety, policy and what you can do as a consumer after the jump.

So, the system doesn’t work. Worse, it’s not even enforceable.
Case in point, 2007 had a record number of meat recalls, followed closely in 2008 by the largest recall ever. Thus far, absolutely no action has ever been taken to penalize these companies. The two USDA inspectors who failed to report the downer cow incidents at Hallmark/Westland are currently only suspended — with pay. Further, neither agency actually has the authority to demand a recall, unless the recalled item is infant formula.

Politics also get directly in the path of food safety.
Many of the people who run the FDA and USDA, agencies that are designed to enforce food safety, also worked in the industries that these agencies are supposed to police. In fact, as of 2006, the chief of staff at the Agriculture Department used to be the beef industry’s chief lobbyist. Further, the head of the FDA was most recently an executive at the National Food Processors Association. It is indeed, the proverbial case of the fox watching over the hen house.

Farm Policy plays a major role.
Finally, from a farm policy standpoint, our food system is vulnerable. Important legislation such as the farm bill, recently being rewritten, encourages a highly centralized system that relies heavily on imported foods. Less than two percent of imported foods were inspected on entry to the country in 2006.

Farm policy also rewards the farmers in this country for only growing eight commodity crops through a system of subsidies. This near monoculture has been made worse by the misguided focus on ethanol production from corn. Farmers who grow any foods other than the commodity crops are ineligible for subsidies. Thus, we increasingly rely on imported foods for items that can easily be grown locally — our agriculture system just makes this less profitable for farmers to do. In fact, in 2004, less than four percent of total US cropland was planted with fruits and vegetables.

The same farm policies that were put in place under Earl Butz, also fostered a system of “Get Big or Get Out.” The number of farms since 1900 has declined by 63 percent, while the size of farms has increased by 67 percent. The result is a highly centralized system. The risk in such a system is that the product, be it meat or spinach, that is tainted is processed at a central location along with thousands of pounds of non-tainted product. The resulting contaminated shipment is then sent across the country. Instead of an easily traceable and localized illness, citizens across the country will be sickened.

This is how legislation, policy and politics directly impact what ends up on your plate. This is why you can’t separate “pork” politics from the pork chop. But, what is a consumer to do? You do have rights, of course, and choice. Remember that we still live in a demand-generated economy. If the demand grows, and farmers who produce crops other than the big eight can thrive, our food supply will improve as a result. It will take time, but there are many things you can do as a consumer to make this happen.

Here is how you can use your rights:

• You can exercise that right to track your representatives’ votes on the farm bill and food safety issues.
• You can write to your reps and tell them your concerns.
• You can source meats, milk and eggs direct from the farmers who raise food animals ethically and naturally, and process them safely. If you cannot afford to buy in bulk to save money, you can team up with other families and make it an affordable, lower cost than buying at the store.
• You can buy produce direct from your farmers market or a CSA.
• You can stop buying processed foods.
• You can stop buying fast food that is heavily subsidized by our agriculture system.
• You can cook at home and benefit from a family meal.
• Finally, you can stay informed on how and where your food is produced and make your own choices.

A downer cow is an animal that is too ill to stand up on its own. After the Mad Cow Disease scares of the late 1990s, Congress passed legislation that prohibited these animals from entering the food supply because of a slightly increased risk of spreading disease into the human population. But in September of 2007, Congress added a loophole to the measure, allowing downer cows into the food supply if a veterinarian deemed it safe. This measure was included to allow otherwise healthy animals with broken legs or torn ligaments into the food supply, but in fact opened the floodgates to profit-minded decisions in bovine health.

Much has been made of the fact that 30% of the shipment that included these particular downer cows filmed was destined for federally-run nutrition program, including the plates of low-income school children who take advantage of free lunch programs. For an in depth look at the socio-economic and children’s rights implications of this scandal, have a look at this excellent article over at The Ethicurean.

But beyond the incredibly important issue of the socio-economic food division, there are two major but separate complaints leveled against the USDA and their complicity in this incident: the issues of food safety and of animal welfare. Since the scandal first appeared on the radar, the USDA has focused some of their blame on the Humane Society because the group held the footage for four months while hired prosecutors investigated. This investigation led to a law suit against the USDA that the Humane Society delivered on Wednesday. During those four months between the video’s filming and its entry into the public sphere, millions of pounds of affected beef were sent to school lunch programs and grocery stores. The Humane Society says that its mission is to protect animal welfare, not to enforce food safety. Of course, this is right. And indeed it is a cynical attack for the USDA to - as Rep Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) told the New York Times - “[blame] the whistle-blower for the agency’s own irresponsible behavior.” But did the Humane Society have a responsibility to report the food safety issue? Putting aside the incompatibility with H.S.’s mission statement, as a group with California citizens, was there a duty to come forward?

Some say yes. For many food advocates, animal welfare and food safety go hand in hand. Legislation that helps one, generally helps the other. Happy, healthy animals that lead natural lives make more nutritious food. Abused, restricted animals require synthetic hormone injections to grow and an abundance of the antibiotics that encourage drug-resistant superbugs to stave off disease. Animals that are not served clean water and good, appropriate food get ailments like foot-and-mouth disease. Yes, by bringing this disaster the fore of agricultural discussions in America, the Humane Society has helped arguments in favor of improving both animal welfare and food safety. But by bringing up the issue sooner, the same result would likely have been achieved.

With the new lawsuit against the USDA (and Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer, in particular), downer cows will likely be once again banned from our plates. This is not only good news for food safety, but should also help protect animals from the kind of treatment that results in injury and illness.

As for the recalled beef, it was buried in several landfills around the country - where it belongs.

(Photo courtesy of the United States Humane Society)