If I knew way back when what I know now I believe I would have pursued a culinary career when I thought about school. Specifically the idea of using fresh, local and organic products or even further having my own organic farm with a restaurant on site. But alas I took a very different direction, one in which school was not involved at all! This is ok for me though as I have in the last few years taken my knowlege of the culinary arts to new levels basically teaching myself and learning more about the local and slow food movement that has been sweeping the culinary world since the 70's with the creation of Chez Panisse in California by Alice Waters. To me there would be no greater job than combining the love of cooking with the love of local, organic ingredients tossed with a side of educating the public on food issues. I recently came across this list of "green chefs" which is so amazing. If we have the chance we plan to visit any one of these amazing restaurants, perhaps you can do the same. If not then read up on these chefs, their restaurants and their work. You will be amazed again by the power of people and food.
Alice Waters, Chez Panisse, Berkeley, Calif., U.S. Thirty years ago, the words "imported from France" signified the height of status and taste on U.S. restaurant menus. Today, the phrases "locally grown" and "organic" have taken over that function (naming the actual farm earns extra points). For that transformation, we largely have Berkeley restaurateur Alice Waters to thank. Founded in 1971 by Waters and a hedonistic band of hippie-bohemians, Chez Panisse quickly established itself as a temple to European farmhouse-style cooking: simple techniques applied to spectacularly fresh and lovingly grown ingredients. But Waters has done much more than inspire high-end chefs nationwide to become "foragers" of the best things growing in their "foodsheds" -- or provide incomparable food for those who can afford the restaurant's $85 prix fixe menu. By challenging the dreadful U.S. school-lunch system, she has also worked hard to make healthy, sustainably grown food a reality for all citizens of the Fast Food Nation. Her innovative Edible Schoolyard program in a Berkeley middle school has emerged as a model worldwide for how healthy, organically grown food can be a tool to enrich kids' minds even as it nourishes their bodies.
Dan Barber, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, Pocantico Hills, N.Y., U.S. Of all the U.S. chefs rushing down -- and extending -- the path blazed by Alice Waters, Dan Barber may be the most important. When he opened Blue Hill Restaurant in Manhattan's Greenwich Village in 2000, he quickly became as famous for his fanatically sourced ingredients as for his inventive cooking. He hauled in much of his restaurant's produce from his family's farm in the Berkshire region of western Massachusetts, and bought the rest at Union Square Greenmarket, where the curly-haired chef became a fixture. In 2004, he began living the dream of every chef who sees cooking as an expression of the surrounding countryside: he opened a restaurant in the middle of a diversified organic farm. Located 30 miles up the Hudson River from New York City, Blue Hill at Stone Barns is the centerpiece of the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, an 80-acre educational farm situated on an old estate owned by the Rockefeller family. Barber transforms the pristine produce of that farm into some of the nation's most celebrated cuisine. And like Alice Waters, Barber isn't content to merely cook glorious food for the well-heeled. He's also a leading voice in the effort to reform U.S. farm policy, which, he argues, is currently rigged in favor of environmentally destructive industrial agriculture.
Alain Passard, L'Arpège, Paris, FranceFor years, Alain Passard had been classed among the world's greatest chefs. His Paris restaurant, L'Arpège, had held a coveted three-star rating from Michelin since 1996, and he had won global fame for his celebrated run in Japan's Iron Chef competition. But in 2001, Passard shocked the culinary world by abruptly pulling meat from his menu. "I was struggling to have a creative relationship with a corpse, a dead animal!" he would later explain. While his ban on animal flesh isn't total -- he still uses some fish and poultry -- he has shifted his creative energies fully to vegetables. As he moves deeper into what he calls a new cuisine vegetale, Passard has turned to growing his own vegetables on his permaculture garden 120 miles southwest of Paris. He hauls the pristine produce into Paris daily by high-speed train. And the European culinary establishment, which initially recoiled from Passard's new direction, has returned in force. L'Arpège has held on to its third Michelin star -- and reservations are as hard as ever to come by.
Guy DraytonFergus Henderson, St. John Restaurant, London, U.K. If Passard startled the culinary world by renouncing meat, London chef Fergus Henderson turned it on its head by embracing animal flesh in its entirety. His logic goes like this: If you're going to eat animals, it's wasteful to focus simply on the center cuts: chops, steaks, breasts. Instead, meat eaters must embrace the "whole beast" -- the title of his celebrated cookbook -- including what's known as the nasty bits: heart, tongue, spleen, etc. In the 1990s, when London chefs were rescuing their city's culinary reputation by looking to southern Europe for inspiration, Henderson was doing stripped-down, sublime versions of homely British classics, leaning heavily on offal -- always from humanely raised and slaughtered animals. His "nose-to-tail" ethic has sparked a trend in the United States. Not only are many chefs insisting on using only locally raised, pastured meat, but they're also educating their clientele on what Henderson has called the "set of delights, textural and flavorsome, that lie beyond the fillet."
Lisa M. HamiltonChris Cosentino, Incanto, San Francisco, Calif., U.S. In a sense, Cosentino can be thought of as the love child of Alice Waters and Fergus Henderson. Cosentino runs Incanto's kitchen as a showcase for the wares of Northern California's farmers, as you would expect from someone who counts Chez Panisse on his resume. And he's also probably the No. 1 U.S. proponent of "nose-to-tail" eating -- he's so committed to the idea that he writes a blog called Offal Good. (A recent post offered a recipe for duck testicles -- a dish which, Cosentino boasts, "a growing number of guests are ordering ... and really enjoying.") Incanto also sparked a trend among Bay Area restaurants to stop selling highly profitable but energy-sucking bottled water. Incanto now offers house-purified still and sparkling water to guests at no charge.
Oliver, Fifteen, London, U.K. Jamie Oliver, television's "Naked Chef," can cut a frivolous figure, with his boyish looks and slangy style. Yet he may be the world's most effective chef-activist. For years, he has used his considerable celebrity to harangue the British government to improve its school-lunch program, which for decades has relied heavily on cheap processed food. In 2005, he used a reality TV show set in a Dickensian public-school cafeteria to shame the government into boosting the amount spent on school lunches by more than $500 million per year. And he's not done. Just last year, Oliver issued a manifesto [PDF] declaring that the government's efforts at improving lunches still fall well short -- and giving specific policy recommendations for improvement. In addition to demanding healthy meals prepared from scratch for all students, Oliver also wants schools to buy direct from local, preferably organic, farmers.
Natalie RossAndrea Reusing, Lantern, Chapel Hill, N.C., U.S. Operating far from the New York/San Francisco media glare, Andrea Reusing has quietly made herself into a model for the citizen-chef. In her off hours, she works tirelessly to promote the produce of central North Carolina's bustling sustainable-agriculture scene. She chairs Slow Food Triangle's convivium, which essentially exists to promote the area's small organic farms. And finally, in the kitchen of Lantern, Reusing takes the best of what her farmer friends grow and transforms it into extraordinary and rigorous Pan-Asian food -- which has put Lantern and the farmers who supply it on the national culinary map.
Corrado Assenza, Caffé Sicilia, Noto, Sicily, Italy In a listing of the globe's greenest chefs, it may seem odd to include a man who toils at what is essentially a Sicilian espresso bar. Yet Caffé Sicilia, situated in the beautifully preserved baroque town of Noto, is no ordinary espresso bar. Wander there for an afternoon shot, and prepare to be dazzled by the wares of Corrado Assenza, a fourth-generation café owner whom many consider Italy's greatest pastry chef. But Assenza's wizardry with gelato, panna cotta, and other delights of the Italian dessert table aren't what put him on this list. Rather, it's his insistence on using the best ingredients he can find from nearby farms. Sicily boasts some of Italy's most productive farmland, but its best produce is often shipped throughout Europe, increasingly leaving its citizens to get by on processed food. Assenza is at the forefront of a movement to reclaim Sicily's culinary produce for its citizens -- and promote organic agriculture in the process.
Tod Murphy, Farmers Diner, Quechee, Vt., U.S. At an unassuming diner in small-town Vermont, Tod Murphy is running what might be the greenest restaurant in the United States. The idea is elegant and deceptively simple: take products from nearby farms, use them to create straightforward diner dishes like burgers and milkshakes, and sell them at a price accessible to most of the community's residents -- including its farmers. While buying direct from nearby farmers is certainly more expensive than tapping global distribution chains, Murphy hopes to make a small profit by achieving high volume -- the opposite of Chez Panisse's boutique approach. Murphy figures that for the local-food trend to truly deliver on its environmental and social promises, it will have to be broadly accessible. "Local good food shouldn't just be a rich person's item ... It should be for everybody," he recently told The Boston Globe. And Farmers Diner has emerged as a closely watched experiment on whether that ideal can become reality.
Rebecca RiddellTed Walter, Passion Fish, Pacific Grove, Calif., U.S. Perhaps no issue links food and environment quite like the state of the oceans. Relentlessly growing human demand for fish is placing severe strains on aquatic ecosystems. If present fishing trends continue, the journal Science warns, marine life faces widespread collapse by 2048. Ted Walter, chef-owner of Passion Fish, stands at the forefront of a growing movement by restaurateurs to educate the public about sustainable seafood. Echoing the Worldwatch Institute, Walter argues that smart harvesting can actually strengthen global fish stocks. And in a bold move for a restaurant renowned for its seafood, Passion Fish recently announced it will only serve fish not in danger of extinction. Given that restaurants account for 70 percent of fish consumed in the U.S., it would make a big impact if Walter's stance started a trend.
Paulo MartinsPaulo Martins, Lá em Casa, Belém, BrazilDespite years of support from do-gooding celebrities, Brazil's Amazon rainforest still needs all the help it can get. Demand for European and U.S. biofuel is surging, giving farmers incentive to rip into the Amazon to plant soybeans for biodiesel production. One way to save the rainforest from the plow -- to convince the world of its value -- is to sustainably harvest the fruits of its vast biodiversity. That's the strategy of Paulo Martins, who has been using exotic produce to create a global stir at his restaurant, Lá em Casa, in the heart of the rainforest. Martins leans heavily on the region's 1,500 species of freshwater fish and 1,000 species of fruit to create a cuisine that's igniting the imaginations of chefs from São Paulo to Barcelona. Martins openly acknowledges his debt to indigenous cooking styles that dominated in the region until colonization in the 16th century -- and still flourish in pockets today. By flaunting the culinary delights of his region's flora and fauna, Martins hopes to drive home the point that the Amazon region -- perhaps the world's greatest natural carbon sink -- has far more important reasons for existence than serving as a mere source of fuel for European and U.S. cars.
Sophie BrissaudDavid Kinch, Manresa, Los Gatos, Calif., U.S. Sourcing seasonal, organic vegetables from nearby farms has become standard in Northern California. David Kinch of Manresa, located in Silicon Valley, is taking the revolution started by Alice Waters one step further. He's collaborating directly with Love Apple Farm in the nearby Santa Cruz Mountains to custom-grow vegetables. Going beyond organic, Kinch and his farmer-collaborator Cynthia Sandberg grow heirloom tomatoes and other delights with biodynamic techniques. In the process, he's turning Manresa into one of the world's most celebrated restaurants.
Maribel RuÃz de ErenchunFerran Adrià , El Bulli, Roses, SpainA leading proponent of the "molecular gastronomy" movement, Ferran Adrià probably ranks as the globe's greatest chef, based on his wildly innovative cuisine. But peel away the mad-genius exterior, and you'll find a cook deeply devoted to his surrounding foodscape -- Spain's Costa Brava. In his cooking manifesto, Adrià declares that "preference is given to vegetables and seafood ... in recent years, red meat and large cuts of poultry have been very sparingly used." And the care with which he chooses the fruits of local farmers and fishers has become legendary. Along with Allain Passard and other European chefs, Adrià launched Vive las Verduras (Long Live Vegetables) in 2007, a group devoted to wedding haute cuisine with sustainable vegetable farming.
Maria GuidoPeter Hoffman, Savoy, New York, N.Y., U.S. Enter Manhattan's Union Square Greenmarket in the early morning, and you'll likely trip over a chef from one of the city's top restaurants. Fifteen years ago, though, most chefs sourced their produce from fancy distributors, who hauled in perfect-looking ingredients from hundreds of miles away. Not Peter Hoffman of Savoy. Since starting his much-loved Soho restaurant in 1990, Hoffman has been a familiar figure among the stalls, stuffing his dramatically oversized bicycle basket with the flavorsome produce of New York City's surrounding foodshed. And his commitment to sustainably produced local food doesn't end in the kitchen -- Hoffman served on the advisory board of the Union Square Greenmarket for 15 years, and has also been executive director of the Chef's Collaborative, which aims to build a more sustainable food supply.
Tae HamamuraMari Fujii, Kamakura, JapanIn Japan as in the West, consumers have become accustomed to all manner of seasonal anomalies -- strawberries in winter, butternut squashes in spring. But the Buddhist tradition of shojin cuisine rejects that dubious bounty on the theory that the health of our bodies and our surroundings alike depends on eating with the seasons. In the seaside town of Kamakura, near Tokyo, chef Mari Fujii has established herself as one of the foremost practitioners of shojin cooking. At the cooking school she runs with her husband, a Buddhist monk, Fujii teaches the simple classic dishes that can be created with wild greens, seaweed, tofu, and whatever produce nearby farmers are harvesting. Classic shojin has become quite popular in Japan -- and could be the next craze in Western Japanese restaurants.
"Find the shortes, simplest way between the earth, the hands and the mouth".
Lanza Del Vasto
Monday, July 30, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
2nd Update on Farm Bill
White House threatens veto for US farm bill
Reuters Thursday, 26 July 2007
Advertisement
The White House has threatened to veto a broad agriculture law being drafted in the United States Congress, which the administration said misses a major chance to overhaul US farm policy in dire need of reform.
The Bush administration has argued that the House Agriculture Committee's plan for the 2007 farm bill – which will set subsidy, biofuels, rural development, conservation and nutrition spending for five years – increases taxes unnecessarily and uses accounting tricks to pay for programmes.
"Myself, and the president's entire team of senior advisors, will recommend that he veto the bill if it is adopted in its current form," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns told reporters. "There are serious problems with the way this (House) bill was put together."
The farm bill package, passed last week under the leadership of committee chairman representative Collin Peterson, would deny subsidies to people with an adjusted gross income above $1 million, which Johanns said would only be about 3,000 people. It also would require payments to be tracked to an individual.
The Bush administration has expressed concern that the bill falls short on priorities such as renewable energy and rural development. It also said the bill does not sufficiently limit eligibility for government farm supports.
For its part, USDA has proposed denying commodity subsidies to people with adjusted gross income of $US200,000 ($NZ252,238) a year, affecting an estimated 38,000 of the wealthiest US farmers.
The House was scheduled to begin debating the bill - which replaces 2002 legislation expiring in September - on Friday. The Senate has not yet begun work on its version.
But Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, said the veto threat was "not the first time that the Bush Administration has turned its back on American agriculture."
He said the bill "represents a carefully crafted compromise that includes substantial reforms and new investments in programmes that matter, including fruit and vegetable production, nutrition programmes, conservation and renewable energy."
A proposal from Democratic representative Lloyd Doggett would help pay for nutrition and food stamps by taxing US plants of companies owned by firms located overseas. Republicans charge the increase would endanger tax treaties and raise the cost of doing business in the United States.
Critics also believe that, without deep reform, the United States may see more challenges at the World Trade Organisation court. US farm subsidies already face two broad challenges from trading partners who believe they violate trade rules.
Representative Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat, and other lawmakers have proposed an alternate plan that would trim grain, cotton and soybean outlays by $US12 billion through 2012. The savings would be shifted to other programmes such as food stamps, land stewardship and aid to fruit and vegetable farmers. It also would use a cap for adjusted gross income of $US250,000.
Johanns said Kind's amendment marked a real go at reform. "I believe that because of that they are going to pick up some support on the House floor," Johanns said.
Reuters Thursday, 26 July 2007
Advertisement
The White House has threatened to veto a broad agriculture law being drafted in the United States Congress, which the administration said misses a major chance to overhaul US farm policy in dire need of reform.
The Bush administration has argued that the House Agriculture Committee's plan for the 2007 farm bill – which will set subsidy, biofuels, rural development, conservation and nutrition spending for five years – increases taxes unnecessarily and uses accounting tricks to pay for programmes.
"Myself, and the president's entire team of senior advisors, will recommend that he veto the bill if it is adopted in its current form," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns told reporters. "There are serious problems with the way this (House) bill was put together."
The farm bill package, passed last week under the leadership of committee chairman representative Collin Peterson, would deny subsidies to people with an adjusted gross income above $1 million, which Johanns said would only be about 3,000 people. It also would require payments to be tracked to an individual.
The Bush administration has expressed concern that the bill falls short on priorities such as renewable energy and rural development. It also said the bill does not sufficiently limit eligibility for government farm supports.
For its part, USDA has proposed denying commodity subsidies to people with adjusted gross income of $US200,000 ($NZ252,238) a year, affecting an estimated 38,000 of the wealthiest US farmers.
The House was scheduled to begin debating the bill - which replaces 2002 legislation expiring in September - on Friday. The Senate has not yet begun work on its version.
But Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, said the veto threat was "not the first time that the Bush Administration has turned its back on American agriculture."
He said the bill "represents a carefully crafted compromise that includes substantial reforms and new investments in programmes that matter, including fruit and vegetable production, nutrition programmes, conservation and renewable energy."
A proposal from Democratic representative Lloyd Doggett would help pay for nutrition and food stamps by taxing US plants of companies owned by firms located overseas. Republicans charge the increase would endanger tax treaties and raise the cost of doing business in the United States.
Critics also believe that, without deep reform, the United States may see more challenges at the World Trade Organisation court. US farm subsidies already face two broad challenges from trading partners who believe they violate trade rules.
Representative Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat, and other lawmakers have proposed an alternate plan that would trim grain, cotton and soybean outlays by $US12 billion through 2012. The savings would be shifted to other programmes such as food stamps, land stewardship and aid to fruit and vegetable farmers. It also would use a cap for adjusted gross income of $US250,000.
Johanns said Kind's amendment marked a real go at reform. "I believe that because of that they are going to pick up some support on the House floor," Johanns said.
Update on the 2007 Farm Bill Vote Today in the House
2007 Press Releases
Agriculture Committee Endorses Aid for Organic Farmers
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 20, 2007) - The Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) today thanked the members of the House Agriculture Committee for including key provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill that will help the organic industry continue to meet growing consumer demand for organic products.
"I am pleased with the support organic agriculture is receiving in this Farm Bill," said OTA Executive Director Caren Wilcox. "The House Agriculture Committee included important provisions that will fund expanded research into organic production, direct USDA to provide timely domestic and international market data on organic crops, and instruct companies selling crop insurance to provide equitable products to organic farmers."
Wilcox thanked Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand for her leadership in establishing a program to provide cost share for conversion and technical assistance for farmers making the transition to organic production. Gillibrand's amendment authorizes $50 million to provide farmers with the mentoring and technical expertise required to transition land from conventional to organic production. Transitioning land to organic production is a three-year process.
Wilcox praised the leadership of Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. "Organic farmers across the country owe the chairman a thank you for putting the needs of the organic industry into this Farm Bill. We are also grateful for the commitment of Dennis Cardoza, chairman of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. We appreciate all that Chairman Cardoza has done to highlight organic agriculture and to work with us on improving the safety net for organic agriculture."
In addition to the Gillibrand amendment, key provisions for organic agriculture in the 2007 Farm Bill include:
1. Directing the Department to eliminate or reduce the 5% organic premium for crop insurance and provide compensation for crop loss at the actual price of the organic crop. Currently, compensation is provided at the price of the conventional crop. In addition, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) would be required to submit an annual report to Congress detailing progress made in developing and improving federal crop insurance for organic crops.2. $22 million to help farmers pay for organic certification. The certification cost-share program would provide up to $750 per farmer, increased from the current $500, to help cover the costs of organic certification. Farmland is deemed organic by USDA accredited certifiers.3. $3 million for organic price and production data. USDA collects reams of data on agriculture prices and production, and will now include data on organic prices and production. In addition, information will be used to analyze crop loss data for organic production, leading to better risk management tools for organic producers.4. Extending the Organic Research and Extension Initiative to examine optimal conservation and environmental outcomes for organically produced agricultural products, and to develop new and improved seed varieties that are particularly suited for organic agriculture. The committee authorized up to $25 million per year which Congress may appropriate for each fiscal year through 2012, plus additional mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation totaling $25 million during all fiscal years through 2012.
Wilcox also thanked Rep. Steve Kagen who spearheaded a sense of the Congress resolution effort to increase funding for organic research commensurate with the organic percentage of the marketplace. Currently, organic represents nearly 3% of the agriculture market; Kagen proposed spending 3% of the research budget on organic research initiatives.
The House of Representatives is expected to consider the 2007 Farm Bill next week, and OTA is recommending support for the bill.
Agriculture Committee Endorses Aid for Organic Farmers
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 20, 2007) - The Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) today thanked the members of the House Agriculture Committee for including key provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill that will help the organic industry continue to meet growing consumer demand for organic products.
"I am pleased with the support organic agriculture is receiving in this Farm Bill," said OTA Executive Director Caren Wilcox. "The House Agriculture Committee included important provisions that will fund expanded research into organic production, direct USDA to provide timely domestic and international market data on organic crops, and instruct companies selling crop insurance to provide equitable products to organic farmers."
Wilcox thanked Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand for her leadership in establishing a program to provide cost share for conversion and technical assistance for farmers making the transition to organic production. Gillibrand's amendment authorizes $50 million to provide farmers with the mentoring and technical expertise required to transition land from conventional to organic production. Transitioning land to organic production is a three-year process.
Wilcox praised the leadership of Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. "Organic farmers across the country owe the chairman a thank you for putting the needs of the organic industry into this Farm Bill. We are also grateful for the commitment of Dennis Cardoza, chairman of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. We appreciate all that Chairman Cardoza has done to highlight organic agriculture and to work with us on improving the safety net for organic agriculture."
In addition to the Gillibrand amendment, key provisions for organic agriculture in the 2007 Farm Bill include:
1. Directing the Department to eliminate or reduce the 5% organic premium for crop insurance and provide compensation for crop loss at the actual price of the organic crop. Currently, compensation is provided at the price of the conventional crop. In addition, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) would be required to submit an annual report to Congress detailing progress made in developing and improving federal crop insurance for organic crops.2. $22 million to help farmers pay for organic certification. The certification cost-share program would provide up to $750 per farmer, increased from the current $500, to help cover the costs of organic certification. Farmland is deemed organic by USDA accredited certifiers.3. $3 million for organic price and production data. USDA collects reams of data on agriculture prices and production, and will now include data on organic prices and production. In addition, information will be used to analyze crop loss data for organic production, leading to better risk management tools for organic producers.4. Extending the Organic Research and Extension Initiative to examine optimal conservation and environmental outcomes for organically produced agricultural products, and to develop new and improved seed varieties that are particularly suited for organic agriculture. The committee authorized up to $25 million per year which Congress may appropriate for each fiscal year through 2012, plus additional mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation totaling $25 million during all fiscal years through 2012.
Wilcox also thanked Rep. Steve Kagen who spearheaded a sense of the Congress resolution effort to increase funding for organic research commensurate with the organic percentage of the marketplace. Currently, organic represents nearly 3% of the agriculture market; Kagen proposed spending 3% of the research budget on organic research initiatives.
The House of Representatives is expected to consider the 2007 Farm Bill next week, and OTA is recommending support for the bill.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
New Post Soon
Plenty: One Man, One Woman, and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally
I have a new post brewing in my mind but of course my week has been busy and no time to blog. So before my weekend starts I'll leave you with a short post until Monday.
I have another book recommendation, this one deals with the local food movement I talk about on this blog. If for some reason you are uncertain of the quiet but mighty revolution going on in our country in and around local food or if you want to know more about how it got started and who started the eat local movement here is your book. In 2005 Alisa Smith and JB Mackinnon embarked on a journey that would change their lives and many others. They decided that for one year they would eat only food grown within 100 miles of their Vancouver home and this book tells of that journey.
"Tell me what you eat, I'll tell you who you are"
~Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Got Milk?
For quite some time now I've been wanting to post an entry on milk in the U.S. Milk is a very controversial topic in many ways. Although I personally believe it should be consumed in small quantities, due to the fact we are the only species which consumes it past the point we are weened and also because as we grow it is extremely hard to digest, when we do consume it I believe wholeheartedly in consuming only organic or better yet local, organic milk. Here's why.
Our society is showered with images of happy animals living on farms where the cows graze in lush green fields and the chickens have the run of the barnyard. This vision of free-roaming animals living out their days in sunny fields is very far from the reality. A majority of the animals that are raised for food live miserable lives in intensive confinement in dark, overcrowded facilities, commonly called "factory farms."
Factory farming began in the 1920s soon after the discovery of vitamins A and D; when these vitamins are added to feed, animals no longer require exercise and sunlight for growth. This allowed large numbers of animals to be raised indoors year-round. The greatest problem that was faced in raising these animals indoors was the spread of disease, which was combated in the 1940s with the development of antibiotics. Farmers found they could increase productivity and reduce the operating costs by using mechanization and assembly-line techniques.
Dairy cows are bred today for high milk production. Most factory farm cows are injected with Bovine Growth Hormone, this in turn makes their already high rate of milk production double. Half of the cows in the national dairy herd are raised in intensive confinement, where they suffer emotionally from being socially deprived and being prohibited from natural behavior. Dairy cows produce milk for about 10 months after giving birth so they are impregnated continuously to keep up the milk flow. Female calves are kept to replenish the herd and male calves are usually sent to veal crates where they live a miserable existence until their slaughter. When cows become unable to produce adequate amounts of milk they are sent to slaughter. The cows are kept in a holding facility where they are fed, watered and have their waste removed mechanically and are allowed out only twice a day to be milked by machines.
Believe me this is not an exaggeration of factory farming, this holds true not just for dairy farms but also poultry and pig farms. These animals are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics which contrary to what the Dairy Council would have you believe DOES get into your milk supply. Animals were designed yes to nourish us but it is our responsibility not to take advantage of that gift but to be stewards of it.
"Plants and animals should be provided a habitat that allows them to express their physiological distinctiveness. Respecting and honoring the pigness of the pig is a foundation for societal health. "
Joel Salatin - Polyface Farms - http://polyfacefarms.com/
Our society is showered with images of happy animals living on farms where the cows graze in lush green fields and the chickens have the run of the barnyard. This vision of free-roaming animals living out their days in sunny fields is very far from the reality. A majority of the animals that are raised for food live miserable lives in intensive confinement in dark, overcrowded facilities, commonly called "factory farms."
Factory farming began in the 1920s soon after the discovery of vitamins A and D; when these vitamins are added to feed, animals no longer require exercise and sunlight for growth. This allowed large numbers of animals to be raised indoors year-round. The greatest problem that was faced in raising these animals indoors was the spread of disease, which was combated in the 1940s with the development of antibiotics. Farmers found they could increase productivity and reduce the operating costs by using mechanization and assembly-line techniques.
Dairy cows are bred today for high milk production. Most factory farm cows are injected with Bovine Growth Hormone, this in turn makes their already high rate of milk production double. Half of the cows in the national dairy herd are raised in intensive confinement, where they suffer emotionally from being socially deprived and being prohibited from natural behavior. Dairy cows produce milk for about 10 months after giving birth so they are impregnated continuously to keep up the milk flow. Female calves are kept to replenish the herd and male calves are usually sent to veal crates where they live a miserable existence until their slaughter. When cows become unable to produce adequate amounts of milk they are sent to slaughter. The cows are kept in a holding facility where they are fed, watered and have their waste removed mechanically and are allowed out only twice a day to be milked by machines.
Believe me this is not an exaggeration of factory farming, this holds true not just for dairy farms but also poultry and pig farms. These animals are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics which contrary to what the Dairy Council would have you believe DOES get into your milk supply. Animals were designed yes to nourish us but it is our responsibility not to take advantage of that gift but to be stewards of it.
"Plants and animals should be provided a habitat that allows them to express their physiological distinctiveness. Respecting and honoring the pigness of the pig is a foundation for societal health. "
Joel Salatin - Polyface Farms - http://polyfacefarms.com/
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Let Them Eat Meat!
So I have always thought that somehow vegetarians/vegans had to be healthier than most of us right? Well much recent research and discussion has posed the question of whether this is actually true. Since it's the holiday tomorrow I'm leaving you with a recent article from the NY Times I read on Veganism. As always may it inspire you to think of that which will truly nourish you.
Death by Veganism
By NINA PLANCK
Published: May 21, 2007
Correction Appended
WHEN Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.
This particular calamity ” at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years ” may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as first class(from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and ssecond class (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.
The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality” even soy.
A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.
Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding isn't possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.
Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.
A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That's why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)
Historically, diet honored tradition: we ate the foods that our mothers, and their mothers, ate. Now, your neighbor or sibling may be a meat-eater or vegetarian, may ferment his foods or eat them raw. This fragmentation of the American menu reflects admirable diversity and tolerance, but food is more important than fashion. Though it's not politically correct to say so, all diets are not created equal.
An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.
Nina Planck is the author of Real Food: What to Eat and Why.
"Understand, when you eat meat, that something did die. You have an obligation to value it - not just the sirloin but also all those wonderful tough little bits."
-Anthony Bourdain -
Death by Veganism
By NINA PLANCK
Published: May 21, 2007
Correction Appended
WHEN Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.
This particular calamity ” at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years ” may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as first class(from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and ssecond class (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.
The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality” even soy.
A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.
Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding isn't possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.
Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.
A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That's why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)
Historically, diet honored tradition: we ate the foods that our mothers, and their mothers, ate. Now, your neighbor or sibling may be a meat-eater or vegetarian, may ferment his foods or eat them raw. This fragmentation of the American menu reflects admirable diversity and tolerance, but food is more important than fashion. Though it's not politically correct to say so, all diets are not created equal.
An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.
Nina Planck is the author of Real Food: What to Eat and Why.
"Understand, when you eat meat, that something did die. You have an obligation to value it - not just the sirloin but also all those wonderful tough little bits."
-Anthony Bourdain -
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
