Food Safety Meets Organic Farming: Destroying the Conceptual Foundations by Hyper-Technologizing

Farmworkers harvest organically grown lettuce at Lakeside Organic Gardens Farm in Watsonville. Photo: Paul Chinn/The Chronicle.
Crops, ponds destroyed in quest for food safety
By Carolyn Lochhead / July 13, 2009

Washington -- Dick Peixoto planted hedges of fennel and flowering cilantro around his organic vegetable fields in the Pajaro Valley near Watsonville to harbor beneficial insects, an alternative to pesticides.

He has since ripped out such plants in the name of food safety, because his big customers demand sterile buffers around his crops. No vegetation. No water. No wildlife of any kind.

"I was driving by a field where a squirrel fed off the end of the field, and so 30 feet in we had to destroy the crop," he said. "On one field where a deer walked through, didn't eat anything, just walked through and you could see the tracks, we had to take out 30 feet on each side of the tracks and annihilate the crop."

In the verdant farmland surrounding Monterey Bay, a national marine sanctuary and one of the world's biological jewels, scorched-earth strategies are being imposed on hundreds of thousands of acres in the quest for an antiseptic field of greens. And the scheme is about to go national.

Invisible to a public that sees only the headlines of the latest food-safety scare - spinach, peppers and now cookie dough - ponds are being poisoned and bulldozed. Vegetation harboring pollinators and filtering storm runoff is being cleared. Fences and poison baits line wildlife corridors. Birds, frogs, mice and deer - and anything that shelters them - are caught in a raging battle in the Salinas Valley against E. coli O157:H7, a lethal, food-borne bacteria.

In pending legislation and in proposed federal regulations, the push for food safety butts up against the movement toward biologically diverse farming methods, while evidence suggests that industrial agriculture may be the bigger culprit.

'Foolhardy' approach

"Sanitizing American agriculture, aside from being impossible, is foolhardy," said UC Berkeley food guru Michael Pollan, who most recently made his case for smaller-scale farming in the documentary film "Food, Inc." "You have to think about what's the logical end point of looking at food this way. It's food grown indoors hydroponically."

Scientists do not know how the killer E. coli pathogen, which dwells mainly in the guts of cattle, made its way to a spinach field near San Juan Bautista (San Benito County) in 2006, leaving four people dead, 35 with acute kidney failure and 103 hospitalized.

The deadly bug first appeared in hamburger meat in the early 1980s and migrated to certain kinds of produce, mainly lettuce and other leafy greens that are cut, mixed and bagged for the convenience of supermarket shoppers. Hundreds of thousands of the bug can fit on the head of a pin; as few as 10 can lodge in a salad and end in lifelong disability, including organ failure.

Going national

For many giant food retailers, the choice between a dead pond and a dead child is no choice at all. Industry has paid more than $100 million in court settlements and verdicts in spinach and lettuce lawsuits, a fraction of the lost sales involved.

Galvanized by the spinach disaster, large growers instituted a quasi-governmental program of new protocols for growing greens safely, called the "leafy greens marketing agreement." A proposal was submitted last month in Washington to take these rules nationwide.

A food safety bill sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, passed this month in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It would give new powers to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate all farms and produce in an attempt to fix the problem. The bill would require consideration of farm diversity and environmental rules, but would leave much to the FDA.

An Amish farmer in Ohio who uses horses to plow his fields could find himself caught in a net aimed 2,000 miles away at a feral pig in San Benito County. While he may pick, pack and sell his greens in one day because he does not refrigerate, the bagged lettuce trucked from Salinas with a 17-day shelf life may be considered safer.

The leafy-green agreement is based on available science, but it is just a jumping-off point.

Large produce buyers have compiled secret "super metrics" that go much further. Farmers must follow them if they expect to sell their crops. These can include vast bare-dirt buffers, elimination of wildlife, and strict rules on water sources. To enforce these rules, retail buyers have sent forth armies of food-safety auditors, many of them trained in indoor processing plants, to inspect fields.

Keeping children out

"They're used to working inside the factory walls," said Ken Kimes, owner of New Natives farms in Aptos (Santa Cruz County) and a board member of the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, a California group. "If they're not prepared for the farm landscape, it can come as quite a shock to them. Some of this stuff that they want, you just can't actually do."

Auditors have told Kimes that no children younger than 5 can be allowed on his farm for fear of diapers. He has been asked to issue identification badges to all visitors.

Not only do the rules conflict with organic and environmental standards; many are simply unscientific. Surprisingly little is known about how E. coli is transmitted from cow to table.

Reducing E. coli

Scientists have created a vaccine to reduce E. coli in livestock, and a White House working group announced plans Tuesday to boost safety standards for eggs and meat. This month, the group is expected to issue draft guidelines for reducing E. coli contamination in leafy greens, tomatoes and melons.

Some science suggests that removing vegetation near field crops could make food less safe. Vegetation and wetlands are a landscape's lungs and kidneys, filtering out not just fertilizers, sediments and pesticides, but also pathogens. UC Davis scientists found that vegetation buffers can remove as much as 98 percent of E. coli from surface water. UC Davis advisers warn that some rodents prefer cleared areas.

Produce buyers compete to demand the most draconian standards, said Jo Ann Baumgartner, head of the Wild Farm Alliance in Watsonville, so that they can sell their products as the "safest."

State agencies responsible for California's water, air and wildlife have been unable to find out from buyers what they are demanding.

They do know that trees have been bulldozed along the riparian corridors of the Salinas Valley, while poison-filled tubes targeting rodents dot lettuce fields. Dying rodents have led to deaths of owls and hawks that naturally control rodents.

Unscientific approach

"It's all based on panic and fear, and the science is not there," said Dr. Andy Gordus, an environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Game.

Preliminary results released in April from a two-year study by the state wildlife agency, UC Davis and the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that less than one-half of 1 percent of 866 wild animals tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 in Central California.

Frogs are unrelated to E. coli, but their remains in bags of mechanically harvested greens are unsightly, Gordus said, so "the industry has been using food safety as a premise to eliminate frogs."

Farmers are told that ponds used to recycle irrigation water are unsafe. So they bulldoze the ponds and pump more groundwater, opening more of the aquifer to saltwater intrusion, said Jill Wilson, an environmental scientist at the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in San Luis Obispo.

Wilson said demands for 450-foot dirt buffers remove the agency's chief means of preventing pollution from entering streams and rivers. Jovita Pajarillo, associate director of the water division in the San Francisco office of the Environmental Protection Agency, said removal of vegetative buffers threatens Arroyo Seco, one of the last remaining stretches of habitat for steelhead trout.

Turning down clients

"It's been a problem for us trying to balance the organic growing methods with the food safety requirements," Peixoto said. "At some point, we can't really meet their criteria. We just tell them that's all we can do, and we have to turn down that customer."

Large retailers did not respond to requests for comment. Food trade groups in Washington suggested calling other trade groups, which didn't comment.

Chiquita/Fresh Express, a large Salinas produce handler, told the advocacy group Food and Water Watch that the company has "developed extensive additional guidelines for the procurement of leafy greens and other produce, but we consider such guidelines to be our confidential and proprietary information."

Seattle trial lawyer Bill Marler, who represented many of the plaintiffs in the 2006 E. coli outbreak in spinach, said, "If we want to have bagged spinach and lettuce available 24/7, 12 months of the year, it comes with costs."

Still, he said, the industry rules won't stop lawsuits or eliminate the risk of processed greens cut in fields, mingled in large baths, put in bags that must be chilled from packing plant to kitchen, and shipped thousands of miles away.

"In 16 years of handling nearly every major food-borne illness outbreak in America, I can tell you I've never had a case where it's been linked to a farmers' market," Marler said.

"Could it happen? Absolutely. But the big problem has been the mass-produced product. What you're seeing is this rub between trying to make it as clean as possible so they don't poison anybody, but still not wanting to come to the reality that it may be the industrialized process that's making it all so risky."

Some major recent outbreaks of food-borne illness

The Food and Drug Administration lists 40 food-borne pathogens. Among the more common: E-coli O157:H7, salmonella, listeria, campylobacter, botulism and hepatitis A.

June 2009: E. coli O157:H7 found in Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough manufactured in Danville, Va., resulted in the recall of 3.6 million packages. Seventy-two people in 30 states were sickened. No traces found on equipment or workers; investigators are looking at flour and other ingredients.

October 2008: Salmonella found in peanut butter from a Peanut Corp. of America plant in Georgia. Nine people died, and an estimated 22,500 were sickened. Criminal negligence was alleged after the product tested positive and was shipped.

June 2008: Salmonella Saintpaul traced to serrano peppers grown in Mexico. More than 1,000 people were sickened in 41 states, with 203 reported hospitalizations and at least one death. Tomatoes were suspected, devastating growers.

April 2007: E. coli O157:H7 found in beef, sickening 14 people. United Food Group recalled 5.7 million pounds of meat.

December 2006: E. coli O157:H7 traced to Taco Bell restaurants in New Jersey and Long Island, N.Y. Green onions suspected, then lettuce. Thirty-nine people were sickened, some with acute kidney failure.

September 2006: E. coli O157:H7 found in Dole bagged spinach processed at Earthbound Farms in San Juan Bautista (San Benito County). The outbreak killed four people, sent 103 to hospitals, and devastated the spinach industry.

Source / San Francisco Chronicle

Thanks to Janet Gilles / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Organic Alternative and the Whole Foods Fraud

The organic monopoly and the myth of 'natural' foods:

How industry giants are undermining the organic movement

On non-meat products, the term natural is typically pure propaganda. Companies (like Whole Foods Market or UNFI) are simply telling us what we want to hear, so that we pay an organic or premium price for a conventional product.

By Ronnie Cummins / July 9, 2009

The organic alternative: A matter of survival

After four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $25 billion "certified organic" food, farming, and green products sector. This consumer-driven movement, under steady attack by the biotech and Big Food lobby, with little or no help from government, has managed to create a healthy and sustainable alternative to America's disastrous, chemical and energy-intensive system of industrial agriculture.

Conscious of the health hazards of Big Food Inc., and the mortal threat of climate change and Peak Oil, a critical mass of organic consumers are now demanding food and other products that are certified organic, as well as locally or regionally produced, minimally processed, and packaged.

The Organic Alternative, in turn, is bolstered by an additional $50 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as "natural," or "sustainable." This rapidly expanding organic/green products sector -- organic (4% of total retail sales) and natural (8%) -- now constitutes more than 12% of total retail grocery sales, with an annual growth rate of 10-15%. Even taking into account what appears to be a permanent economic recession and a lower rate of growth than that seen over the past 20 years, the organic and natural market will likely constitute 31-56% of grocery sales in 2020.

If the Organic Alternative continues to grow, and if consumers demand that all so-called "natural" products move in a genuine, third party-certified "transition to organic" direction, the U.S. will be well on its way to solving three of the nation's most pressing problems: climate change, deteriorating public health, and Peak Oil.

Sales statistics and polls underline the positive fact that a vast army of organic consumers, more than 75 million Americans, despite an economic recession, are willing to pay a premium price for organic and green products. These consumers are willing to pay a premium because they firmly believe that organic and natural products are healthier, climate stabilizing, environmentally sustainable, humane for animals, and well as more equitable for family farmers, farmworkers, and workers throughout the supply chain.

Many of the most committed organic consumers are conscious of the fact that organic food and other products are actually "cheaper" in real terms than conventional food and other items-since industrial agriculture's so-called "cheap" products carry hidden costs, including billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to our health, the environment, and climate.

Strengthening the argument for organic food and farming, scientists now tell us that it will take a massive conversion to organic agriculture (as well as renewable energy, sustainable housing and transportation) to drastically reduce climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million and to cope with the advent of "Peak Oil," the impending decline in petroleum and natural gas supplies.

Organic food and a healthy diet and lifestyle are obviously key factors in preventing chronic disease, restoring public health, and reducing out-of-control health care costs. While in 1970, U.S. health care spending appeared somewhat sustainable, totaling $75 billion, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services project that by 2016, health care spending will soar to over $4.1 trillion, or $12,782 per resident.

Millions of health-minded Americans, especially parents of young children, now understand that cheap, non-organic, industrial food is hazardous. Not only does chemical and energy-intensive factory farming destroy the environment, impoverish rural communities, exploit farm workers, inflict unnecessary cruelty on farm animals, and contaminate the water supply; but the end product itself is inevitably contaminated.

Plane spreads pesticides, adding to the contamination of non-organic food.
Routinely contained in nearly every bite or swallow of non-organic industrial food are pesticides, antibiotics and other animal drug residues, pathogens, feces, hormone disrupting chemicals, toxic sludge, slaughterhouse waste, genetically modified organisms, chemical additives and preservatives, irradiation-derived radiolytic chemical by-products, and a host of other hazardous allergens and toxins.

Eighty million cases of food poisoning every year in the US, an impending swine/bird flu pandemic (directly attributable to factory farms), and an epidemic of food-related cancers, heart attacks, and obesity make for a compelling case for the Organic Alternative.

Likewise millions of green-minded consumers understand that industrial agriculture poses a terminal threat to the environment and climate stability. A highly conscious and passionate segment of the population are beginning to understand that converting to non-chemical, energy-efficient, carbon-sequestering organic farming practices, and drastically reducing food miles by relocalizing the food chain, are essential preconditions for stabilizing our out-of-control climate and preparing our families and communities for Peak Oil and future energy shortages.

Decades of research confirm that organic agriculture produces crop yields that are comparable (under normal weather conditions) or even 50-70% superior (during droughts or excessive rain) to chemical farming. Nutritional studies show that organic crops are qualitatively higher in vitamin content and trace minerals, and that fresh unprocessed organic foods boost the immune system and reduce cancer risks.

And, of course climate scientists emphasize that organic agriculture substantially reduces greenhouse pollution. Organic farms use, on the average, 50% or less petroleum inputs than chemical farms, while generating drastically less greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Moreover diverse, multi-crop organic farms sequester enormous amounts of CO2 in the soil. Agronomists point out that a return to traditional organic farming practices across the globe could reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 40%.

In other words, America and the world desperately need an Organic Revolution in food and farming, not only to salvage public health and improve nutrition, but also in order to literally survive in the onrushing era of Peak Oil and climate change.


Scientists, as well as common sense, warn us that a public health Doomsday Clock is ticking. Within a decade, diet and environment-related diseases, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer-heavily subsidized under our Big Pharma/chemical/genetically engineered/factory farm system-will likely bankrupt Medicare and the entire U.S. health care system.

Likewise, climate chaos and oil shortages, unless we act quickly, will soon severely disrupt industrial agriculture and long-distance food transportation, leading to massive crop failures, food shortages, famine, war, and pestilence. Even more alarming, accelerating levels of greenhouse gases (especially from cars, coal, cattle, and related rainforest and wetlands destruction) will soon push global warming to a tipping point that will melt the polar icecaps and unleash a cataclysmic discharge of climate-destabilizing methane, fragilely sequestered in the frozen arctic tundra.

If we care about our children and the future generations, we obviously must reverse global warming, stabilize the climate, and prepare for petroleum shortages and vastly higher oil prices. The only way to do this is to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2050, by shifting away from petroleum and coal-based energy to radical energy conservation and making a transition to renewable solar and wind power-not only in transportation, housing, and industry, but in farming, food processing, and food distribution as well.

In the food sector, we cannot continue to hand over 88% of our consumer dollars to out-of-control, chemical-intensive, energy-intensive, greenhouse gas polluting corporations and "profit at any cost" retail chains such as Wal-Mart. The growth of the Organic Alternative is literally a matter of survival. The question then becomes how (and how quickly) can we move healthy, organic, and "natural" products from a 12% market share, to becoming the dominant force in American food and farming. This is a major undertaking, one that will require a major transformation in public consciousness and policy, but it is doable, and absolutely necessary.

But before we overthrow Monsanto, Wal-Mart, and Food Inc., we need to put our own house in order. Before we set our sights on making organic and "transition to organic" the norm, rather than the alternative, we need to take a closer, more critical look at the $50 billion annual natural food and products industry.

How natural is the so-called natural food in our local Whole Foods Market, coop, or grocery store? Is the "natural" sector moving our nation toward an organic future, or has it degenerated into a "green washed" marketing tool, disguising unhealthy and unsustainable food and farming practices as alternatives. Is "natural" just a marketing ploy to sell conventional-unhealthy, energy-intensive, and non-sustainable food and products at a premium price?

The myth of natural food, farming, and products

Walk down the aisles of any Whole Foods Market (WFM) or browse the wholesale catalogue of industry giant United Natural Foods (UNFI) and look closely. What do you see? Row after row of attractively displayed, but mostly non-organic "natural" (i.e. conventional) foods and products. By marketing sleight of hand, these conventional foods, vitamins, private label "365" items, and personal care products become "natural" or "almost organic" (and overpriced) in the Whole Foods setting.

Whole Foods: Row after row of 'natural' foods.
The overwhelming majority of WFM products, even their best-selling private label, "365" house brand, are not organic, but rather the products of chemical-intensive and energy-intensive farm and food production factories. Test these so-called natural products in a lab and what will you find: pesticide residues, Genetically Modified Organisms, and a long list of problematic and/or carcinogenic synthetic chemicals and additives.

Trace these products back to the farm or factory and what will you find: climate destabilizing chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and sewage sludge-not to mention exploited farm workers and workers in the food processing industry. Of course there are many products in WFM (and in UNFI's catalogue} that bear the label "USDA Organic." But the overwhelming majority of their products, even their best selling private label, "365," are not.

What does certified organic or "USDA Organic" mean? This means these products are certified 95-100% organic. Certified organic means the farmer or producer has undergone a regular inspection of its farm, facilities, ingredients, and practices by an independent Third Party certifier, accredited by the USDA National Organic Program (NOP).

The producer has followed strict NOP regulations and maintained detailed records. Synthetic pesticides, animal drugs, sewage sludge, GMOs, irradiation, and chemical fertilizers are prohibited. Farm animals, soil, and crops have been managed organically; food can only be processed with certain methods; only allowed ingredients can be used.

On the other hand, what does "natural" really mean, in terms of farming practices, ingredients, and its impact on the environment and climate? To put it bluntly, "natural," in the overwhelming majority of cases is meaningless, even though most consumers do not fully understand this. Natural, in other words, means conventional, with a green veneer.

Natural products are routinely produced using pesticides, chemical fertilizer, hormones, genetic engineering, and sewage sludge. Natural or conventional products-whether produce, dairy, or canned or frozen goods are typically produced on large industrial farms or in processing plants that are highly polluting, chemical-intensive and energy-intensive.

"Natural," "all-natural," and "sustainable," products in most cases are neither backed up by rules and regulations, nor a Third Party certifier. Natural and sustainable are typically label claims that are neither policed nor monitored. (For an evaluation of eco-labels see the Consumers Union website). The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service provides loose, non-enforced guidelines for the use of the term "natural" on meat--basically the products cannot contain artificial flavors, coloring, or preservatives and cannot be more than minimally processed.

Cruel and unusual.
On non-meat products, the term natural is typically pure propaganda. Companies (like Whole Foods Market or UNFI) are simply telling us what we want to hear, so that we pay an organic or premium price for a conventional product. Perhaps this wouldn't matter that much if we were living in normal times, with a relatively healthy population, environment, and climate. Conventional products sold as natural or "nearly organic" would be a simple matter of chicanery or consumer fraud. But we are not living in normal times.

Pressuring natural and conventional products and producers to make the transition to organic is a matter of life or death. And standing in the way of making this great transition are not only Fortune 500 food and beverage corporations, Monsanto, and corporate agribusiness, as we would expect, but the wholesale and retail giants in the organic and natural products sector, UNFI (United Natural Foods) and Whole Foods Market (WFM).

UNFI and Whole Foods: Profits at any cost

UNFI and Whole Foods Market are the acknowledged market and wholesale distribution leaders in the $70 billion organic and natural foods and products sector. Companies or brands that want to distribute their products on more than just a local or regional basis must deal with the near-monopoly wholesaler, UNFI, and giant retailer WFM. Meanwhile retailers in markets dominated by Whole Foods have little choice but to emulate the business practices of WFM -- i.e. sell as many conventional foods, green washed as "natural," as possible.

Unfortunately neither UNFI and Whole Foods are putting out the essential message to their millions of customers that expanding organics is literally a matter of life or death for public health, climate, and the environment. Neither is leading the charge to double or triple organic food and farming sales by exposing the myth of natural foods, giving preference to organic producers and products, and pressuring natural brands and companies to make the transition to organic. Neither are the industry giants lobbying the government to stop nickel and dime-ing organics and get serious about making a societal transition to organic food and farming.

Organic Carrots. Photo © Rebekah Burgess / Dreamstime.com / Organic Feast.
The reason for this is simple: it is far easier and more profitable for UNFI and WFM to sell conventional or so-called natural foods at a premium price, than it is to pay a premium price for organics and educate consumers as to why "cheap" conventional/natural food is really more expensive than organic, given the astronomical hidden costs (health, pollution, climate destabilization) of conventional agriculture and food processing.

UNFI has cemented this "WFM/Conventional as Natural" paradigm by emulating conventional grocery store practices: giving WFM preferential prices over smaller stores and coops ---many of whom are trying their best to sell as many certified organic and local organic products as possible. Compounding this undermining of organics is the increasing practice among large organic companies of dropping organic ingredients in favor of conventional ingredients, while maintaining their preferential shelf space in WFM or UNFI-supplied stores.

In other words the most ethical and organic (often smaller) grocers and producers are being discriminated against. WFM also demands, and in most cases receives, a large quantity of free products from producers in exchange for being distributed in WFM markets.

The unfortunate consequence of all this is that it's very difficult for an independently-owned grocer or a coop trying to sell mostly organic products to compete with, or even survive in the same market as WFM, given the natural products "Sweetheart Deal" between UNFI and WFM.

As a consequence more and more independently owned "natural" grocery stores and coops are emulating the WFM model, while a number of brand name, formerly organic, companies are moving away from organic ingredients (Silk soy milk, Horizon, Hain, and Peace Cereal for example) or organic practices (the infamous intensive confinement dairy feedlots of Horizon and Aurora) altogether, while maintaining a misleading green profile in the UNFI/WFM marketplace.

Other companies, in the multi-billion dollar body care sector for example, are simply labeling their conventional/natural products as "organic" or trade-marking the word "organic" or "organics" as part of their brand name.

The bottom line is that we must put our money and our principles where our values lie. Buy Certified Organic, not so-called natural products, today and everyday. And tell your retail grocer or coop how you feel. Please join thousands of other Organic Consumers and send a message to Whole Foods and UNFI today.

[Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.]

Source / CommonDreams

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Stevia : Sweet News in Fight Against Diabetes

Natural sweetener Stevia, now approved by the FDA, doesn't raise blood sugar levels, which is good news in the fight against diabetes, a killer disease affecting millions worldwide.

By Kate Braun and Mariann Wizard / The Rag Blog / June 16, 2009

There's good news in the fight against diabetes: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) as a food and beverage sweetener! Stevia, a South American plant, has some of the sweetest compounds in the world, but they don't raise blood sugar levels. Used as a sweetener in South America for years, before FDA approval it was available here only as a "dietary supplement."

Now, soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo says it will make a line of drinks and foods with stevia instead of sugar or artificial sweeteners; hopefully, others will follow. Stevia is also available now, under different brand names, alongside sugar in the baking aisles of local supermarkets; ask for it if you don't see it! Stevia can be used in baking, but because it is so sweet, may require recipe changes, or products specially made for baking. Look at package directions to find what works for you!

Millions of people worldwide have diabetes, a killer disease that is very difficult to manage, often causing lost limbs and/or blindness. It is linked to obesity, cardiovascular (heart) disease, and other serious conditions. Some diabetes is hereditary, while adult onset diabetes (type II) is thought to result in large part from poor eating habits. In the US, Hispanic, Native American, and Black people are particularly at risk. Although there is much less diabetes in Asia, Asians who adopt a "typical" US diet (refined sugar, refined flour, fried foods, fatty red meats) raise their risk. People who are sedentary are more at risk than those who are active. Millions more people are "borderline diabetic," with blood sugar levels just below those requiring treatment.

Although originally from South America, stevia does well in Austin's climate. Grow it to make your own inexpensive stevia sweetener! Seeds or plants may be obtained locally in the spring, ask your favorite nursery. Seeds may be purchased on-line from several sites, just search for “stevia seeds." Stevia plants like sunny or partly sunny spots with good drainage. They need enough water to not droop in the heat. Mulching helps them survive the heat. In Austin, they are a "perennial" that dies down in the winter and sends up new shoots in the spring.

It is best to not harvest stevia the first year, whether you start with seeds or plants. The root system is shallow and broad, and needs time to develop. You can grow stevia in a container, but the roots need lots of room; a wide, shallow pot is better than a tall, narrow one. Outdoors, plants self-seed easily. Start with three and in five years you'll have a forest! Some say stevia plants become unproductive after three years; personal experience says "not so!"

When it dies back in winter, break off the dry stalks, but leave something sticking above ground so you'll know where the plants are. When new shoots emerge, make sure they have water, sit back, and watch them grow. Stevia produces 2–3 foot tall fuzzy stalks and lots of leaves. As with any herb, harvest before flowers open (stevia's are small white clusters). Harvest stems and leaves (leave the roots), rinse well, and pat them dry. Place in a clean paper bag and hang it to dry for several days in a well-ventilated area. Store dry stevia in glass containers as you would any herb.

To make stevia water, pack a heat-proof container (a Pyrex pitcher works well) with fresh or dried stevia. Pour boiling water in to cover completely (use a spoon to push/tamp the stevia down; it will try to float). Make sure the water has reached a rolling boil. Cover the container and set aside until cool, at least three hours. Then, either strain out the stevia or refrigerate the container to steep overnight before straining. Longer steeping produces stronger sweetness. After discarding the stems and leaves, you have stevia water! Made from freshly picked stevia, it is a pale honey color; from dried it looks like flat cola. Store as a liquid in the refrigerator, or freeze in an ice cube tray and store the cubes in the freezer.

Stevia water may be used to sweeten coffee, tea, lemonade or limeade to taste (a few drops will do it!), on cereal, to help sweeten fruit pies, and in home-made slurpees, crushed ice drinks, or sherbets; the possibilities are endless. For anyone concerned about blood sugar, stevia is a sweet alternative, and even folks who aren't concerned about their "sugar" will enjoy stevia-sweetened foods!

[Kate Braun, an experienced psychic, teacher, co-op activist, and gardener, often writes about herbs, and grows and uses them in her own home kitchen. Mariann Wizard writes about regulatory matters and reviews scientific research on herbs and alternative medicine for the American Botanical Council. Both are regular contributors to The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Foodie Sunday: Open Season on Alice Waters

Alice Waters. Photograph by Jamie Rose/The New York Times/Redux.
The War on Alice Waters
By Laura Shapiro / May 6, 2009

She made sustainable agriculture a rallying cry, but now the activist chef is under attack from food lovers.

“It...radically overstates Alice Waters’s significance and impact to say that...any major changes have occurred because of her. She’s one person in a large movement that would have been just fine without her, albeit perhaps a little different at the margins.” —Fat Guy, egullet.org

“There’s something very Khmer Rouge about Alice Waters that has become unrealistic.” —Anthony Bourdain, DCist.com

“Is it wrong for me to wish that [Alice Waters] would just go away, already?” —Josh Ozersky, the-feedbag.com

“Alice Waters Was a Foodie Hero. Now She’s the Food Police.” —Todd Kliman, npr.org

“Leading the culinary cops is Alice Waters....Her cooking philosophy [is] a chiding and bourgeois brand of junk food prohibitionism.” —Carla Spartos, New York Post

“What is it exactly that she did that has changed things?” —rancho_gordo, egullet.org

Lock and load, folks: It’s open season on Alice Waters. The woman who put agriculture at the center of American gastronomy, back when you couldn’t buy a truly ripe peach even at the fanciest grocer in town, is now getting pounded in the most concentrated assault from food lovers since ketchup was named a vegetable. Once a glorious heroine battling to reclaim our diet from the food industry, today she’s a Gang of One, trashed over and over for a long list of crimes against the revolution. Out in the real world Waters is still a popular figure, greeting friends at her flourishing restaurant, Chez Panisse, and drawing enthusiastic audiences at events on the cuisine-and-politics circuit. But throughout the food media, especially in the blogs, the term “food police” is back and dripping with blood.

Part of what’s happening, of course, may just be cyclical. The spectacle of fame followed by destruction has always been one of the great epic dramas, played out over and over in the favorite myths of every land. Perhaps we’re about to witness a triumphant final act, as the exiled heroine returns in glory to lead her people to victory. (Then again, if the gods are feeling testy, we sometimes get the Joan of Arc scenario, where the outcome is less good. Never mind.) At any rate, Waters can hardly open a newspaper or log on to the Internet these days without finding herself at the center of a tempestuous debate about rich and poor, slim and obese, the proper uses of fame and whether it’s still a revolution if it’s taking place in the nation’s most desirable culinary zip code.

What it all seems to come down to is elitism, a charge against Waters that has become increasingly vehement as the economy keeps getting worse. It’s easy to understand the accusation. After all, this is a woman who believes to her heart’s core that local, organic strawberries are always going to be the most practical purchase—no matter what they cost, or how tight your budget—because this is the most important way you can possibly spend money. Okay, it’s not a point of view that leaves a lot of room for canned tuna. But I wouldn’t call it elitism, especially in the larger context of her single-minded determination to change American food systems from the ground up. The history of great professional cuisine is largely about feeding the rich, and few chefs or proprietors ever thought to include anyone in their constituency except the people who ate in their restaurants. Waters was the first high-end restaurateur to put her kitchen at the service of social change, and to define her clientele far more widely than the glamorous crowd in the dining rooms.

What irks people, I think, are the impossibly airy goals she likes to swirl about herself like so many silk scarves. But she isn’t a thinker, she’s a utopian, a relentless radical who just doesn’t care whether the current checks and balances of real life can accommodate her ideas. Where she’s been effective—amassing widespread support for small farms, reinventing school lunch, overhauling our image of luxury dining to put three carrots and a radish at center stage—it’s because she had the power to make her own fantasies come true. But she’s perfectly willing to press on with the fantasies even without the power. I doubt whether she knows any other way to operate.

A single person doesn’t constitute a revolution, any more than a single restaurant does, or a single best-seller. But every revolution has its focal points—a few people, events, and books so invigorating and memorable they become stand-ins for change itself. We use them to gain historical traction as we assess what’s happened and try to figure out where we should be going. Clearly, Waters is a focal point, whether you think of her as the Gandhi of food or the Britney Spears. And if you’re in the latter camp, just remember that while you don’t have to share her conviction that Satan invented freezers, you do have to give her credit for helping to inspire a genuine turnaround in the way Americans think about food. “Do we really need to know the provenance of an egg?” asks restaurant critic Todd Kliman, who can’t stand what he calls Waters’s “inflexible brand of gastronomical correctness.” And he adds, “Shopping is not cooking.”

Oh, but it is. Shopping is at least 50 percent of cooking, and the rest is up to the cook, for better or worse. Julia Child focused her immense influence on the cook; and although we no longer make rich, elaborate French dinners even for company, her lessons became part of the American culinary genome. Waters has focused on the ingredients. I confess, I rarely shop for organic pea shoots and will probably live my entire life without tasting a biodynamic medjool date from Flying Disc Ranch in California. But the little farmers market up the street from me, with its local apples and onions, is there two days a week without fail because many people these days have a far greater understanding of what makes good food good than nearly anybody did 40 years ago. A big part of the difference has been Alice Waters.

Source / Gourmet

Thanks to Jeffrey Segal / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Austin's Whole Foods : Union Busting in Hippie Clothing?

Whole Foods Market's flagship store and corporate headquarters in Austin, Texas.
Something Stinks at Whole Foods

...something sinister lurks beneath the surface of Whole Foods’ progressive image. Somehow, [founder and CEO John] Mackey has managed to achieve multimillionaire status while his employees’ hourly wages have remained in the $8 to $13 range for two decades.

By Sharon Smith / May 9, 2009

Whole Foods Market is a highly profitable corporation that far outperforms its competitors, while maintaining an aura of commitment to social justice and environmental responsibility. Its clientele is attracted not only to its brightly lit array of pristine fruits and vegetables, organically farmed meats, and delectable (yet healthy) recipes, but also to the notion that the mere act of shopping at Whole Foods is helping to change the world.

In 2007, Whole Foods launched its "Whole Trade Guarantee," stating its aim as advancing the Fair Trade movement -- encouraging higher wages and prices paid to farmers in poor countries while promoting environmentally safe practices. In addition, Whole Foods announced that one percent of proceeds will be turned over to its own Whole Planet Foundation, which supports micro-loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries.

Meanwhile, the company’s Animal Compassion Foundation seeks to improve living conditions for farm animals, while stores periodically hold “5 Percent Days,” when they donate five percent of sales for that day to an area non-profit or educational organization.

Whole Foods also has a distinctive reputation for rejecting traditional corporate management models in favor of decentralized decision-making, described as an experiment in workplace democracy. There are no departments at Whole Foods stores, only “Teams” of employees. And Whole Foods has no managerial job titles, just Team Leaders and Assistant Team Leaders.

Nor does the company admit to having any workers, only Team Members who meet regularly to decide everything from local suppliers to who should get hired onto the Team. Generally, the company strives to achieve consensus at Team meetings, where workers brainstorm about new ways to raise productivity. And new hires need to win the votes of at least two-thirds of Team Members in order to make the cut.

The liberal dress code at Whole Foods allows nose rings, Mohawks, visible tattoos and other expressions of individuality to help promote its stated goal of “Team Member Happiness” for its relatively young workforce. Each Team takes regular expeditions, known as “Team Builds,” to local farms or other enterprises to educate themselves on how to better serve their customers.

When Team Members show extra effort on the job, Team Leaders award them with “High Fives” that can be used to enter an onsite raffle to win a gift card. When a Team Member gets fired, it is sadly announced as a “separation.”

For all its decentralization, the “unique culture” so beholden to Whole Foods’ supporters bears the distinct stamp of its cofounder and CEO, John Mackey, who declared in 1992, a year after Whole Foods went public, "We're creating an organization based on love instead of fear.

The former hippie is known for shunning suits and ties and wearing shorts and hiking boots to meetings -- and for insisting that before the end of every business meeting, everyone says something nice about everyone else in a round of “appreciations." In a 2004 Fast Company article, business writer Charles Fishman favorably quoted a former Whole Foods executive calling Mackey an “anarchist” for his eccentric executive style.

But something sinister lurks beneath the surface of Whole Foods’ progressive image. Somehow, Mackey has managed to achieve multimillionaire status while his employees’ hourly wages have remained in the $8 to $13 range for two decades. With an annual turnover rate of 25 percent, the vast majority of workers last no more than four years and thus rarely manage to achieve anything approaching seniority and the higher wages that would accompany it. If Whole Foods’ workers are younger than the competitions’, that is the intention.

But another secret to Whole Foods’ success is its shockingly high prices. When Wal-Mart began promoting its own organic products last year, Whole Foods’ Southwest regional president Michael Besancon scoffed at the notion that Wal-Mart could present serious competition. "There's no way in the world that we'd win a price battle with Wal-Mart," he told the Rocky Mountain News. "I'm relatively smarter than that."

On the contrary, Whole Foods orients to a higher income clientele willing to pay significantly more for somewhat higher quality foods. Whereas the average supermarket chain’s profits traditionally hover at around one percent, Whole Foods was able to sustain a profit margin of three percent for 14 years after it went public in 1992. After hitting a low of one percent in the economic downturn in late 2008, “now the margins are expanding again,” according to the Cabot Report’s investment adviser Mike Cintolo on April 26th.

Indeed, Mackey is no progressive, but rather a self-described libertarian in the tradition of the Cato Institute. He combines this with a strong dose of paternalism toward the company’s employees. Mackey complained about his unique dilemma at the helm of Whole Foods to fellow executives in an October 2004 speech: “I cofounded the company, so I’m like this father figure at Whole Foods. I’m this rich father figure and everybody’s pulling at me saying, 'Daddy, daddy can we have this, can we have that, can we have this, can we have that?' And I’m either like the kind, generous daddy or the mean, scrooge daddy who says 'No.'"

Using a carrot and very large stick, Mackey managed to “convince” Whole Foods workers across the country to vote in 2004 to dramatically downgrade their own healthcare benefits by switching to a so-called “consumer-driven” health plan –- corporate double-speak for the high deductible/low coverage savings account plans preferred by profit-driven enterprises. As Mackey advised other executives in the same 2004 speech, “[I]f you want to set up a consumer-driven health plan, I strongly urge you not to put it as one option in a cafeteria plan, but to make it the only option.”

There have been setbacks for Mackey, to be sure. He suffered public humiliation in 2007 when he was exposed as having blogged under the false user name "rahodeb" -- his wife’s name spelled in reverse -- between 1999 and 2006 at online financial chat boards hosted by Yahoo.

For seven years, he backstabbed his rivals -- including the Wild Oats franchise that Mackey later purchased as an addition to the Whole Foods Empire. The Wall Street Journal reported a typical post: "’Would Whole Foods buy (Wild Oats)? Almost surely not at current prices,’ rahodeb wrote. ‘What would they gain? (Their) locations are too small.’” At one point, rahodeb even admired Mackey's latest haircut, gushing, "I think he looks cute!"

Preventing Whole Foods workers from unionizing has always been at the top of Mackey’s agenda, and the company has been successful thus far at crushing every attempt. Perhaps the company’s most notorious attack on workers’ right to unionize occurred in Madison, Wisconsin in 2002. Even after a majority of workers voted for the union, Whole Foods spent the next year canceling and stalling negotiation sessions -- knowing that after a year, they could legally engineer a vote to decertify the union. Mission accomplished.

At the mere mention of the word “union," Whole Foods still turns ferocious. Even when United Farm Workers activists turned up outside a Whole Foods store in Austin, Texas, where Mackey is based, the company called the police and had them arrested for the “crime” of passing out informational literature on their current grape boycott. And as Mother Jones recently reported, “An internal Whole Foods document listing ‘six strategic goals for Whole Foods Market to achieve by 201... includes a goal to remain ‘100% union-free.’”

Mackey launched a national anti-union offensive in January, in preparation for the (remote) possibility that President Barack Obama, upon his inauguration, would make it a legislative priority to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), allowing workers to win unionization when a majority of a company’s workforce signs a union card. Although union card check is standard procedure in many countries, Mackey claimed to the Washington Post that it "violates a bedrock principle of American democracy" and has vowed to fight to prevent its passage here.

"Armed with those weapons,” Mackey argued, “you will see unionization sweep across the United States and set workplaces at war with each other. I do not think it would be a good thing." Workers don’t want to join unions anymore, Mackey declared, contradicting every recent opinion poll: "That so few companies are unionized is not for a lack of trying but because [unions] are losing elections -- workers aren't choosing to have labor representation. I don't feel things are worse off for labor today."

In January, Whole Foods launched a nationwide campaign, requiring workers to attend “Union Awareness Training” complete with Power Point presentations. At the meetings, store leaders asserted, “Unions are deceptive, money hungry organizations who will say and do almost anything to ‘infiltrate’ and coerce employees into joining their ranks,” according to Whole Foods workers who attended one such meeting.

“According to store leadership,” the workers continued, “since the mid 1980's unions have been on decline because according to Whole Foods ‘theory’, federal and state legislation enacted to protect workers rights has eliminated the need in most industries (and especially Whole Foods stores) for union organization… No need to disrupt the great ‘culture’ that would shrivel up and die if the company become unionized.”

When rumors recently began circulating that a union drive might be brewing in San Francisco, the response from the company was immediate -- including mandatory “Morale Meetings” to dissuade employees. But company leaders failed to address workers’ complaints that they have gone without any pay raises sometimes for more than two years because Team Leaders have neglected to hold “Job Dialogue” meetings (known as “annual performance reviews” in traditional corporate-speak).

There was a time in decades past when liberalism was defined in part by its principled defense of the right to collective bargaining. That liberal tradition was buried by the market-driven neoliberal agenda over the last three decades, allowing companies like Whole Foods to posture as progressive organizations when their corporate policies are based upon violating one of the most basic of civil rights: the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Indeed, Whole Foods has ridden its progressive image to absorb its smaller competitors and emerge as a corporate giant.

As the Texas Observer argued recently, "People shop at Whole Foods not just because it offers organic produce and natural foods, but because it claims to run its business in a way that demonstrates a genuine concern for the community, the environment, and the 'whole planet,' in the words of its motto. In reality, Whole Foods has gone on a corporate feeding frenzy in recent years, swallowing rival retailers across the country... The expansion is driven by a simple and lucrative business strategy: high prices and low wages."

Indeed, Whole Foods now stands as the second largest anti-union retailer in the U.S., beaten only by Wal-Mart. Most of Whole Foods’ loyal clientele certainly would –- and should -- shudder at the comparison.

[Sharon Smith is the author of Women and Socialism and Subterranean Fire: a History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States. She can be reached at: sharon@internationalsocialist.org.]

Source / Counter Punch

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Foodie Friday: World's Best Tortilla Soup

Healing Broths
By Janet Gilles / The Rag Blog / March 6, 2009

My old buddy David Hamilton, knowing of my recent foray into healing broths, gave me a large grocery sack of collard greens from his garden. Why it took so long to seek out these old remedies I do not know, as throughout the ages broths have been used to heal what ails us. I got out the big soup pot, and cleaned out the fridge, throwing in some old celery, onions, and carrots.

Boiled in three gallons of water for a few hours, I got a couple gallons of terrific broth, which I drink in the evenings instead of wine, beer, tea or coffee. Surprisingly delicious and satisfying. Another one is to take 6 artichokes and boil three hours. Very nice and a great way to spend an evening sipping hot broth with friends that you care about.

Additionally, you have on hand an excellent broth for the making of soup. Guests confirm that this is the best tortilla soup they have eaten!!

World's Best Tortilla Soup

Take three cups of rich vegetable broth in a pot. Add a sliced tomato or two, and a couple tablespoons of miso, for depth, and for the microbes that we need for proper food digestion. Heat.

In each of two bowls put:

Two tablespoons hummus (mashed garbanzo beans, sesame tahine, garlic, lemon juice, olive oil)
Chopped green onions and cilantro
Sliced corn tortillas (cooked rice also quite delicious!)
Avocado slices

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Herdshares, Melamine and the Crazed Priorites of the 'Regulators'

I wonder what sort of regulatory model we have arrived at that finds it commendable to break up small groups of people wanting to raise and consume a natural product with no harmful properties and yet ignores a massive, fraudulent, intentional contamination of food with industrial toxins.

By Jack Kittredge / The Rag Blog / January 2, 2009

[Jack Kittredge is a former political activist and SDS member who is now an organic farmer in Massachussetts. A version of this article appeared in the newsletter of the Massachussetts Chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA). This is an excellent piece, pointing to the serious dangers of melamine and the skewed priorities of the FDA and other “regulators,” and we think it deserves a wider audience.]

Some friends involved with the Northeast Organic Farming Association have recently been finding and passing along fascinating (if somewhat chilling) news about developments on the industrial and local food fronts.

Frank Albani forwarded a 13-page document that is the first clear explanation I have seen on melamine. Melamine is the white powder derived from petroleum used in the production of plastic goods. It has nearly the same chemical structure as the milk protein casseinate, but with extra nitrogen ions. It has been added to milk and other foods as a very cheap way to boost the apparent protein content of the food.

If ingested, however, the extra nitrogen ions prevent the compound from being absorbed or excreted by the kidneys. It eventually forms kidney stones that block the tubes that cleanse and excrete urine. This leads to intense pain, swelling, bleeding and eventual death. Emergency surgery can remove the stones, but by then there is often irreversible kidney damage and life-long dialysis, or regular blood-washing hooked up to a machine in a hospital, is necessary.

In 2007 over 50,000 United States cats and dogs died suddenly and investigators found that pet food from China contained high levels of melamine. Starting in 2008 an increase in the number of infant kidney stone cases in China was reported. In August of 2008, the Chinese milk powder Sanlu tested positive for melamine. In September, pressured by New Zealand, China tested a broad line of milk-based food products, many of which showed melamine content. New Zealand, Australia and most EU nations issued recalls and public warnings. The US, however, remained silent.

Billions of dollars worth of milk-based Halloween and holiday candy continue to pour out of China to our shores. Some of the familiar brand names offering products containing dairy ingredients from China include: Kraft, M&M, Nabisco, Nestle, and Snickers.

So much for news on the industrial food front. On to the local angle.

Steve and Barbara Smith operate Meadowsweet Dairy in the Finger Lakes region of New York and process raw milk from their cows into products like yogurt, butter and cream for the 120 shareholding families in their herdshare. (In case you haven’t heard of herdshares, they are legal arrangements whereby consumers purchase a share of a herd of cows and hire a farmer to milk the cows and provide the consumer with the milk—or milk products—from the cow he or she already owns. The idea takes advantage of the almost universal exemption for owners of cows to legally consume their cow’s unpasteurized milk products.)

I interviewed the Smiths for the “Families and Farming” issue of The Natural Farmer in 2001 and found them to be warm and wonderful NOFA farmers and parents, and their lemon kefir simply delicious!

Despite no cases of health or other problems with Meadowsweet Dairy, however, New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets has been trying to shut them down. In the Empire State, raw milk permits allow the farm to sell just unprocessed raw milk -- no cream, butter, yogurt, or other “processed” raw milk products. They apparently see the herdshare as a ruse and an attempt to sell raw milk products outside the law.

Jill Ebbott alerted me and several others to the excellent blogs by David Gumbert regarding federal and state efforts to shut down raw milk dairies, including the Smiths’. Most upsetting when I read these was the news that a New York state court has now ruled against the Smiths, Judge John C. Egan, Jr. saying that herdshares give no exemption from regulation. He ruled that the shareholders were consumers “based on the plain meaning of the word” and that the state had the power to search the dairy, open and seize containers and products, and regulate its operations.

The state is now aggressively following up on this victory by going against other local farmers. In a late November press release the Department of Ag and Markets says their inspectors are organizing squads “dedicated to administering and enforcing the State’s food safety laws and regulations to protect the public health…”

I sometimes wonder what sort of regulatory model we have arrived at in this country that finds it commendable to break up small groups of people wanting to raise and consume a natural product with no harmful properties and which they believe is healthful for their families, and yet ignores a massive, fraudulent, intentional contamination of food with industrial toxins.

I don’t want to believe that there is a deeper villain here. Could it simply be easier to go after the Smiths and the local families they serve than to pick a fight with large corporate food companies that have lawyers and PR departments and friends in high places? Could it be that the FDA is just acting out the anti-regulatory beliefs of the Republicans while the NY zealots are responding to a liberal, Democratic and big government agenda?

Or are some of my friends right -- those who believe that our public health enforcers’ fetish for sanitizing is a conscious effort to squeeze out the small farmer and food artisan, leaving only one food system, the industrial, global one. Then, with a population half sick and with no alternatives to regain natural good health, the pharmaceutical and food conglomerates will have us where they want us.

As Gumpert concludes, we have an important fight on our hands -- for the sake of our health and our family’s health, we need to keep small farmers and food producers alive and thriving. And as Michael Pollan suggests, we need to stop buying any product of the food industry that needs to have a label; it is no longer a food. If enough of that happens then we can have our sustenance from men and women who know us, want our trade, and are willing to hold to high standards to deserve it.

Also see The Real Melamine Story: The FDA Isn't Protecting Us by James E. McWilliams / The Rag Blog / Dec. 29, 2008

Thanks to Allen Young / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Fatty Foods : All the Skinny

'Obesity, though some would prefer to call it eating disorders, is a big growth area, not just for the unwitting sufferers, but also for some food companies which contribute so greatly to the problem.'
By Asinus Asinum Fricat / November 18, 2008

A couple of days ago I wrote this diary and copped quite a few unkind comments, mostly from misinformed posters and a handful of hardcore denialists. Yet the problems persist, and shooting the messenger rarely helps. But I'm a tough cookie, comfortable in the knowledge of what I know and write about and in this diary I'm basically tackling the same issues albeit from a different angle: "Big Pharma" and the multinational junk & processed foods companies ("Big Food") which, worldwide, make gigantic profits on the back of unsuspecting consumers, specifically marketing non-nutritious food appealing to children and adults alike via disingenuous advertising.

Obesity, though some would prefer to call it eating disorders, is a big growth area, not just for the unwitting sufferers, but also for some food companies which contribute so greatly to the problem. "Big Pharma" which works in tandem with "Big Food" would love to "terminate" its main source of competition: the natural products industry and the organic movement.

First let me remind you that Barack Obama's election means that it is Big Pharma that stands to take a hit, according to The Boston Consulting Group. Its analysis concludes that Obama's plan to let the federal government negotiate Medicare drug prices could cut industry revenues by a whopping $10 billion to $30 billion. That's good news for those suffering from a plethora of illnesses. I'm not sure how his administration will handle Big Food but one thing is certain: like the banks it badly needs to get regulated particularly in the area of food additives, supersaturated produce with empty calories in the form of white flour, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, transgenic (synthetic) fats, labeling and unscrupulously aggressive marketing.

There are over 320,000 food items on the market, and many food companies produce both "good" and "bad" food. If you thought that the following "modern" foods were harmless, think again: juices, yogurts, cheese sticks, corn flakes, pastries, chocolate & energy bars are all loaded with sweeteners and additives.

Soft drinks: (get rid of them) research indicates that if you drink as little as 2 sodas or colas a day, it promotes diabetes and weight gain. Informed nutritionists have known this for years, which is that taking in empty calories from sugar and high fructose corn syrup is not only wasteful, but can be harmful to the digestive system. HFCS is also found in condiments like ketchup, fruit juices and chocolate bars.

The dangers of hydrogenated oils and partially hydrogenated oils are also developed from otherwise harmless, natural elements. To make them hydrogenated, oils are heated in the presence of hydrogen and metal catalysts. This process helps prolong shelf life but simultaneously creates transfats, which only have to be disclosed on the label if the food contains more than 0.5 grams per serving. To avoid listing transfats, or to claim "transfat free" on their label, sneaky food manufacturers simply adjust the serving size until the transfat content falls under 0.5 grams per serving. Voila! The Harvard School of Public Health has estimated that at least 30,000 people, and more probably 100,000 people die every year in the US from cardiovascular disease caused by consuming hydrogenated oils, as opposed to natural vegetable oil.

Remember when some physicians told you about this new wonder drugs that can take off weight without even thinking? One such drug is Sanofi-Aventis' (SNY) rimonabant, which is marketed as Acomplia in the EU. No such "luck" in the US though, it was rightly rejected for its suicidal tendencies. The medicine supposedly suppresses the receptors in the brain that cause people to crave fatty foods. The other drug is GlaxoSmithkline's (GSK) Alli, which is now available over the counter.

Alli is essentially the over-the-counter version of Xenical, (generic name is orlistat) a prescription medicine already available. Xenical works by blocking the amount of fat absorbed through the digestive system.

At the time of the Alli's launch last year, GSK estimated it would eventually sell between five million and six million kits annually, translating to at least $1.5 billion in annual retail. A 60-capsule kit costs about $50 while a 90-capsule pack costs about $60. Does it work? Not enough to spark a run on Brazilian bikini but if you agree to a commitment to living your life in a new way as you must learn to change your eating and activity habits, then it's for you. But why spend that kind of money when you have to completely change your lifestyle and do all the proverbial heavy lifting? Those taking Alli, btw, have to put up with some diarrhea and flatulence.

And now on the legal front: on 17 April 2008, GSK, along with the American Dietetic Association and the Obesity Society (both regarded by many as fronts for the Big Pharma) petitioned the FDA to try to prevent any dietary supplement product making weight loss claims. The company wants weight loss claims to be re-classified as disease claims, therefore making them the sole domain of treatments with licensed pharmaceuticals. And since GSK's Alli product is the only weight loss drug that is on the over-the-counter market it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see their reasoning.

A lawsuit aimed at getting soft drinks firms out of US schools on obesity grounds is now ready to go, says one of the leading lawyers involved to BeverageDaily.com, as new research suggests obesity litigation will become the next "tobacco".

When it comes to using litigation as a strategy to combat obesity, food manufacturers should be most wary of lawsuits based on consumer protection acts, according to a new report that examines the application of tobacco litigation methods to obesity lawsuits.

The report uses the history of tobacco litigation as a model to evaluate potential legislation against the food industry, which the authors claim is another industry that poses a threat to public health.

Published in this month's issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the study says

that although national legislation against the food industry would be a "preferable" strategy to protect public health, lessons from the tobacco wars suggest that effective national legislation is currently unlikely.

One of the reasons for this is that the industry has a strong influence on the process, say authors Jess Alderman and Richard Daynard. Like tobacco, the food industry routinely- and often invisibly- seeks to influence both legislators and health professionals to support its agenda while ignoring its potential impact on public health".

And when it comes to individual personal injury lawsuits against food companies, these also could carry a slim chance of success, although the companies involved are likely to fight litigation at every step.

"Losing such a lawsuit could open the floodgates of litigation by encouraging millions of obese Americans to file similar cases, so it would be advantageous for the food industry to delay or defend every such lawsuit to the fullest extent."

However, as was demonstrated in the EU recently, lawsuits based on consumer protection acts are likely to be much more effective, as these avoid complicated causation issues and focus instead on deceptive marketing tactics and could fall under consumer protection statutes, together with false advertising, misleading claims and unfairly taking advantage of vulnerable consumers.

Indeed, back in 2005 an American consumer launched a lawsuit aimed at food companies including Kraft Foods, General Mills and Kellogg, alleging that "low sugar" labels on cereals were deceptive as the companies replace the sugar with other carbohydrates, thus offering no significant nutritional advantage. The suit claims that these cereals are misleading because they aren't any healthier than cereals with regular levels of sugar, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The food industry in general is coming under increasing pressure from food lobby groups and some parents, to "clean up its act" and offer healthier alternatives to help combat the obesity epidemic facing the world. Sugary cereals are frequently cited by these groups as guilty culprits, encouraging children to eat empty calories instead of nutritional whole foods. Will Obama appoint a food "czar", someone who can and will take on Big Food?

High fruit and vegetable prices may be linked to childhood obesity, says the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), although it suggests that further research is needed in order to confirm the "casual relationship" identified by its recent study.

The USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) findings are based on an examination of the diets and weight of around 7,000 children between kindergarten and third grade.

"Children who lived in metropolitan areas where fruits and vegetables were relatively expensive gained significantly more weight than children who lived where fruit and vegetables were cheaper," said the USDA, adding that the children who participated in the study had a similar way and standard of living

Data from the Bureau of Labor cites that both American children and parents are spending increased time commuting from work, school and activities. Eating takes place en route from one venue or another, making sitting down to a home-cooked, carefully balanced meal even less of a reality for families. The absence of regulated family eating schedules was cited as one of the main causes of poor dietary habits. But other major concerns cited by respondents should serve as a warning to food makers that they are not about to be let off the hook just yet.

"Children's eating habits are suffering due to the lack of structured meal time, and this is as big a challenge as the lack of balanced meals," said Amanda Archibald, analyst and registered dietitian for Mintel. "Compressed schedules and cramped time availability for both children and parents may play a more important role than previously thought in making healthy food choices."

According to Mintel's Menu Insights, a menu-tracking system, more than 47 percent of children's menu items were fried. Chicken fingers led the way on the top 5 children's menu dishes list, followed by grilled cheese sandwiches, burgers, macaroni and cheese, and hot dogs.

Mintel's report also cites that overall restaurant portions have also steadily increased over time.

And recently, a number of academic studies presented at the AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research reveal growing evidence that overall cancer incidence and mortality resulting from overweight and obesity is also increasing, something which places more pressure on the food industry, and presents regulators with another headache.

If you'd like to read about Big Pharma cloak & dagger scare tactics, look no further than here.

Source / La Vida Locavore

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

NUTRITION : The Pros and Cons of "Organic" Food Revisited

Yesterday The Rag Blog posted an article by Roger Baker in which he contended that the types of food you eat can be more important than eating food labeled “organic.” [NUTRITION: Are Organic Foods Just a Marketing Trend? by Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / September 29, 2008.]

In the article below, Roger expands on this argument.

It is obviously important to distinguish between what is trendy and what is genuinely better nutrition, and this question strikes a vein of contention with many of those committed to health and sustainability.

The Rag Blog urges it’s readers to join in this discussion. Please post your opinions by clicking on “comments” below.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog / September 30, 2008

There’s ‘organic’ and then there’s what passes as ‘organic’
By Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / September 30, 2008

When you call something "organic" you may have to make a distinction whether you are referring to what passes for organic under the official USDA certification process under the Bush administration or something else entirely:

ALERT - USDA Announcement: Foods Carrying the USDA '95% Organic' Seal Are Now Allowed to Contain Factory Farmed Intestines, PCBs, and Mercury / Organic Consumers Association.

The organic foods industry has become a hugely profitable concentrated business in the last decade. Go to this link and look to the right column "Who owns what" to show how a few giants now dominate the industry.

All About Organics - OCA's Organic Resource Center / Organic Consumers Association.

Then go below to read how organic does not mean sustainable but may often be less sustainable due to energy inputs like transportation. As energy costs rise, farming will have to become more local and labor intensive, which are probably good trends, and will discourage meat consumption, but that has little to do with organic labeling.

The intelligent focus, I think, should probably be more on the KINDS of foods and their health implications and the sustainability of production and energy inputs rather than what can get organic certification nowadays under weakened federal standards. There is not much science involved these days to allow consumers to evaluate alternatives, so it ends up like arguing religion:

Organic food 'no benefit to health' / Guardian, U.K.

Also the term organic does not really mean the use of no pesticides, but primarily seems to imply a lack of chemical fertilizers:

History of the National Organic Program / Rainbow Grocery.

. . .What originally started as a system of farming, whereby the soil and the ecosystem around the plants cultivate a healthy environment, now big business farmers can purchase the organisms and other organic inputs that allow them to qualify as USDA Organic without developing a sustainable ecosystem. Rick and Kristie Knoll don't need to purchase healthy organisms for their soil, or bugs that will eat the pests on their plants because the land they've developed already hosts a natural organic ecosystem. They also don't chlorinate their salad greens or use sodium nitrate, practices that are acceptable by the new USDA standards.

And there are other issues beyond pests and soil conditions. "Most of the original organic farmers are out of business. Nobody is thinking about what cheap prices means to the farmers," said Knoll. Paying workers a livable wage and offering affordable healthcare is often unheard of in agribusiness, but is another important goal of sustainable farmers. Food miles or how far a product travels before it reaches the retailer and eventually the consumer is another major concern. . .

Here is the conclusion from one recent review:

The findings of this study have revealed that the trend in the level of significance with respect to vitamin C, calcium and potassium in organically and follow a regular and consistent pattern. It was observed in this study that there were no significant differences in vitamin C content between organically and conventionally grown cabbage, Cos lettuce and carrots while significant differences were observed in organically and conventionally grown Valencia oranges with the organic Valencia oranges showing a higher values.

From the results as well as other previous findings, it is very evident that there is still controversy on nutritional superiority of organic and conventional produce because there are numerous confounding factors that make it difficult to establish a standardized environment in which to produce the two food sources. It is therefore highly recommended that future studies on organically and conventionally grown produce should attempt to address confounding factors such as climate, soil type, crop type, fertilizer application, post harvest handling and others before valid conclusions can be made.

Research Paper / African Journal of Biotechnology

I think the jury is still out on nutrients due to the many factors involved in soil types, etc.

Meanwhile it is clear, to me at least, that eating healthy kinds of foods like lots of grains, vegetables, and fruits is more important health-wise than the typical choice between organic and inorganic foods. The "organic" choice is largely cultural -- and very controversial and heated as I have learned. I think things are going to have to move in that direction, but driven less by corporate influence and more by energy economics.

As the energy crisis worsens in the next decade, food will become more expensive, the number of farmers will have to increase, human labor and carbon rich soils will have to be substituted for fuel and nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides, and agriculture will have to become more local. More foods will be eaten in season, and the big organic food corporations will have to decline in influence after expanding hugely in recent years.

The number of farmers will have to increase because farmers are now aging and the average age of farmers is now over 55 and only about 6% are under 35 so farming knowledge is itelf disappearing. We have only 3-4 million farmers for a population of 300 million, or slightly over 1%. Meanwhile, water supplies are shrinking and the planet is warming.

But mainly world oil production is peaking. So is natural gas, meaning that nitrogen fertilizer made from gas will decrease agri productivity. And the mechanized farm equipment and shipping ability will decrease and thus require more human labor and more local production.

All this is spelled out in detail in Richard Heinberg's latest book "Peak Everything", Chapter 2, titled "Fifty Million Farmers". Heinberg thinks the only alternative that will possibly feed the nation is for local gardening everywhere like we had in the USA during the world wars. Maybe suburban lawns will have to be farmed.

Already rising energy prices are raising the cost of food. From 20% of our national income in 1950 to a recent low of 10%, which is probably as low as it can go.

In 1900, 40% of the USA population farmed, but now with cheap mechanized energy to operate equipment it is close to 1%. After the Soviet Union cut off the oil to Cuba, the farming population in Cuba had to rise to 15-25%. If we extrapolate to the USA, this means about 50 million farmers, which is where Heinberg gets his estimate.

Of course meat production is a wasteful use of corn and soybeans compared to direct human consumption, so the nature of our diet will have to change too. Trucking food to distant processing facilities will have to be largely eliminated too. When the price of oil rises to $200 a barrel and higher, it will change the economy. There are probably good analysis pieces about this on The oil Drum and Energy Bulletin.

As well as references in Paul Robert's book "The End of Food" (he is hip to peak oil; see page 222-225) and Heinberg's chapter 2 references.

"The End of Food" is a good source on many of the current trends (largely unhealthy and unsustainable) within what has become an increasingly corporate-dominated food industry that kills many by promoting poor food choices, the organic issue aside.

[Also read Roger's earliter article, NUTRITION: Are Organic Foods Just a Marketing Trend? by Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / September 29, 2008.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

NUTRITION : Are 'Organic' Foods Just a Marketing Ploy?

Organic apple. Better, or just more expensive?
Study shows what you eat is more important than whether the food meets the criteria to be called 'organic'
By Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / September 29, 2008

Are "organic" foods really safer or more nutritious?

They could be in some cases, but in general, there is little scientific evidence that this is so.

The evidence seems to indicate that WHICH types of foods that one eats are a far more important factor than, say, whether you eat foods that meet the USDA criteria for organic, and as officially determined and promoted and certified by the organic food lobby. Here is a MAYO Clinic study affirming this conclusion.

The term "organic" seems to be largely a marketing ploy by corporate chains like Whole Foods to convince people that by eating their higher-priced foods, which do not involve the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, one can therefore avoid medical problems which are now scientifically known to be genetic in origin, etc. It is little accident that the isles of organic groceries are filled with countless herbal nostrums and remedies and cures with no proven scientific validity whatsoever, whereas drugs of well-known efficacy such as aspirin are non-existent.

A multi-billion dollar marketing empire has thus arisen based on the unsubstantiated theory that "pure" organic foods are by themselves an important addition to health and longevity. And furthermore that general health and longevity of consumers are determined more by the conditions under which the food plants and animals are grown are more important than which types of foods are chosen for the diet. Another example of corporate marketing and their lobbies dominating science.

The fact is that average human life spans were MUCH shorter BEFORE the advent of chemical fertilizers, genetic engineering, and pesticides in the food chain, and before the advent of scientific medicine.

Thus, whether or not you eat healthy KINDS of foods is probably far more important than the parts per billion of fungicides that may be present in your foods, until it is scientifically proven to the contrary, especially since it is now known that many naturally occurring toxins are also harmful.

That is not to say that the chemical additives are perfectly harmless, but rather that they may be an unimportant factor in relation to other risks when they are evaluated scientifically rather than emotionally.

The nutrient and chemical toxin quantities are usually unmeasured even in those few cases where their benefit and risk is accurately known, thus giving the "organic" label a false importance. The organic food lobby is totally focused on the organic certification to the exclusion of the scientific assessment of risk as a food health factor, because to adopt this official certification is such an important source of corporate profit.

In any case, peak oil will localize food production and minimize fertilizer and pesticide additions, so these will become factors of less concern as food costs rise and food availability tself becomes primary.

Higher priced "health" foods involve billions of dollars of dubious and unproven benefit and should be subjected to the impartial judgment of science rather than pseudo-science and corporate marketing promotions.

It is far better for health and the wallet to focus on the increased consumption of grains and vegetables, reduced meat consumption, and increased exercise than it is to focus on the "organic" label – if one is to survive in optimum health and to avoid the incipient poverty induced by corporate marketing scams.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...