Green Options » salmonella outbreak

Peanut Butter Recall Causes 25% Drop in Sales: Parents Fear Salmonella

Derek Markham — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:00:35 +0000

With the headlines full of peanut butter recalls and salmonella outbreaks, many people are skipping the Skippy and jetting past the Jif, sending peanut butter sales down 25%. Manufacturers are now spreading ad campaigns and giving out coupons, trying to reassure consumers that eating their products is safe.

How to Handle the Peanut Butter Recall? Try Almond Butter Instead.

Mary Casper — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:36:13 +0000

With each of the recent salmonella outbreaks, I seem to develop a mysterious, if wholly unfounded, distaste for the culprit in all its manifestations. When it was spinach, I switched my salad to Caesar and stocked up on romaine. Then with tomatoes, I let my sandwiches suffice with crunchy cucumber instead. Despite the guidelines that usually accompany a recall, I’m happier to just abstain from the afflicted species for awhile until the buzz dies down

Now with peanut butter on the outs, you may find yourself seeking a B-list nut butter just to be safe. Technically speaking, jars of peanut butter are still in the clear. The thing is, peanut butter is already the lowliest of the nut butters and actually a legume butter, despite its popularity in the American market. So consider this latest epidemic an opportunity, if you will. If you’re with me, I’d like to introduce you to a more sophisticated escort to that jam in your sandwich: butter from almonds.

Latest Food News

Beth Bader — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:43:01 +0000

The Latest on the Farm Bill
Michael Pollan sent an email to his subscriber list with his take on the Farm Bill that was finally passed after much delay, debate, a veto, a Congressional override. The short take is the bill contains no major subsidy reform. Pollan’s words on the subject:

Here’s what I think happened. Critics of farm-policy-as usual– and I count myself among them– did a much better job of demonizing subsidies than they did proposing alternative forms of farm support that would have won over some percentage of the farmers now receiving subsidies. The whole discourse depicting subsidies as a form of welfare — payments to celebrities, rich people in cities, mega-farms etc– convinced many farmers that the ultimate goal of the farm bill’s critics was to abolish subsidies, rather than to develop a new set of incentives that would encourage farmers to grow real food and take good care of their land. Had the reformers crafted proposals that were easy to explain and attractive to even just a segment of commodity-crop farmers, we could have made much more progress. Instead, faced with what appeared like a threat to their livelihood, the old guard hunkered down and defended the status quo, refusing even to negotiate on the central issues. Better alternatives could have split this block, and it was our failing not to devise and promote them. What the Old Guard did instead of negotiating a new system of farm support was what it has always done: pick off the opposition, faction by faction, by offering money for pet programs. The history of the farm bill has long been about such trade offs: Urban legislators support subsidies in exchange for rural support for food stamps. That Grand Bargain has now been extended to supporters of organic agriculture, local food systems, school lunch advocates, etc. The reason that, in the end, most of the activist groups wound up urging Congress to override the veto is that, by the end, they all had been given something they liked in the bill. You could put it more baldly, and suggest they’d all been bought off– that the $300-plus billion bill represents the exact price of buying off all the critics of the farm bill, plus the cost of maintaining the status quo. But this is how the game is played, and the fact is, some good will come of these programs, modest as they are– they will sow seeds of change and legitimize alternative food chains, or so we can hope.
Read more of this story »