Green Options

Chicken nuggets. Taco salad. Pizza. Cartons of milk. Hot dogs. Mystery meat. These foods were all staples of my elementary and high school cafeterias, despite clear guidelines about the nutritional benefits for school meals. Efforts to reform school lunch got a boost Tuesday when Institute of Medicine of the National Academies released “School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children,” a report of recommendations for how to reform school lunch.

The report was requested by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to help align the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs with the most recent set of dietary guidelines for Americans. Current school lunches must meet guidelines set in 1995, but nutritional knowledge has progressed since then, and the report tries to address those changes.

The US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, announced last month plans to use an additional $30 million dollars to purchase pork in 2009 for federal food and nutrition assistance programs.

This announcement comes as the USDA has already spent some $151 million of Recovery Act (widely known as the “stimulus”) money to purchase pork products.  To me there’s always a bit of irony when pork barrel money is spent to purchase actual pork, as is the case here.  You can read the USDA Press Release here.

There’s theoretically nothing wrong with using taxpayer money to support pork producers who are struggling with a glut of supply and lagging demand, as well as slower sales due to the economic conditions in the US.  But since a majority of pork producers in the US are huge CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), essentially your tax money is being used to bail out pork producers who are having a slow year.

Aerial sharpshooters with the U.S. Department of Agriculture have killed four wolves in Montana for preying on sheep in the secretive Sheep Experiment Station.

The last four wolves of the Sage Creek Pack were gunned down this week by USDA aerial sharpshooters, after the wolves had been targeted for preying on sheep in the 100,000+ acre USDA Sheep Experiment Station (USSES) west of Yellowstone National Park.

A visionary, inspiring image:  “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.”

No, this isn’t some crunchy, organic non-profit’s local food campaign or a new Slow Food slogan.  This message comes to us fresh from our United States Department of Agriculture.  “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” is a national effort collectively launching this week, designed to build vibrant local and regional food systems that provide healthful food and build the economic base of rural communities.  It showcases the importance of the connection between us and our food sources and includes $65 million in new funding initiatives.

The fact that this message comes from the USDA represents the fresh crop of vision under the Obama Administration.  Thanks to the efforts of USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, there’s a new ingredient at the USDA that has the potential to cook up something big:  leadership.  Harvesting inspiration from back in 1862 when Abraham Lincoln established the USDA as the “People’s Department,” this week’s collective efforts takes a transforming perspective on the relationship between our food and us:  personal responsibility.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of watermelons are tossed every year because they aren’t good enough for market. A new study finds that the juice from these watermelons could easily be used to create the biofuel ethanol and other helpful products.

If you go to the Organic Consumers Association website you will see that they are upset about the way that stores like Whole Foods market products as “natural.”  They believe (and they are probably right) that consumers will confuse this with “Organic.”  In fact there are no real rules about what can be called “natural” and savvy marketers have realized that almost everyone likes the concept of “natural” and they have tapped into that for selling power.

The problem for the Organic community is that their own, highly regulated farming system is also built on the concept of “natural.”  I have a good friend who was on the board of CCOF (California’s organic certification leader) back in the days when the definition of “USDA Organic” was being hammered out (1990-2002).  He explained that one reason it took so long was that there was a philosophical struggle between the Organic stalwarts who wanted it to be driven by what was “natural” and by the USDA that wanted to bring some science into what was safest and best for the environment.  The “natural” voices prevailed.

Composting is a really green thing to do, right? I’ve always thought so since my Grandfather taught me to do it in the early sixties. Large-scale composting is getting to be quite the rage. The City of San Francisco attracted a great deal of attention with it’s mandatory food scrap recycling program and lots of local wineries are bragging about their use of that compost to fertilize their vineyards.

I just read today about how the Langley Parish Council in England is setting up a village compost and “set an example to small villages as the UK strives to battle climate change.”  Unfortunately, I recently learned that they and San Francisco and the Napa wineries might actually be doing is contributing to climate change.

Climate change science often ends up challenging things we think we know.

Inconvenience

The idea of composting is to provide plenty of moisture and oxygen so that microbes will digest the easily available organic matter and generate a great deal of metabolic heat in the process.  What is left at the end is a sterilized source of more resistant organic matter that can enrich a soil. 

Composting

of wastes is done with very good intentions, but there is the inconvenient truth that even a very well run large-scale compost operation emits some methane.

But if you stop to think about it, as much as you intend to have oxygen available to the whole pile (aerobic conditions), there are definitely going to be micro-sites that are going to lack oxygen (anaerobic conditions) particularly when there is huge oxygen demand during the peak of the process. That is where methane gets made.

US Department of Energy secretary Steven Chu and US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack have announced that the two agencies will be providing $6.3 million dollars for 7 projects at research institutions throughout the US to improve the use of plant feedstocks in biofuel production.

Although biofuels have fallen out of favor in the public eye recently, the federal government — led by Secretary Chu — is still forging ahead with providing money to research next generation biofuels.

“Part of the solution to the energy problem will be home-grown energy crops,” said secretary Chu in a statement. “These projects will help us unlock the true potential of advanced biofuels, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and create new jobs and a thriving biofuels industry in America.”

Much has been said in opposition to the cap and trade climate legislation that is currently on the Senate’s plate. Opponents have argued repeatedly that the legislation will do nothing but increase the cost of energy, which will force companies send jobs over seas, where labor is cheaper, in order to keep up with production demands. Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) even went as far as to call the Waxman-Markey Bill “a pig in a poke.”

Raining Rose - the first in the promotional items industry to offer a USDA certified organic promotional lip balm - is getting ready for the 4th of July celebrations in the US by releasing three new lip balm wraps ready for the addition of your companies logo and contact information.

You’ve likely heard of Skin Deep, the cosmetic safety database which lists the toxicity of ingredients in personal care products.  But did you know there is now a similar database for food?