We got a lot of forks and knives and well, we gotta cut somethin'

The phrase "vote with your fork" sends chills down my spine. It sounds like a child dragging a fork across a chalkboard. It is a duller than a plastic butter-knife made to spread hydrogenated vegetable shortening… blacker than the absence of light—the absence of hope. It is so discouraging because it comes from a movement with such a proven capacity for creative problem-solving. I mean really, can't we do better than Meadow Gold vs. Horizon Organic milk (both owned by the same parent company Dean Foods)?
The San Francisco Chronicle Insight section on November 30,2008, "How Safe is Your Lunch" revealed how irrational our global food system is- sending chickens raised in Mexico to be processed in China and sold to Americans, for example. It showed how the best way to ensure quality food is to eat local. The collection of articles did a fantastic job exposing marketing gimmicks—no, organic does not mean domestic. Yet, when it came to offering solutions to transform our food system, all the reader got is the same tired old "vote with your fork" and even "vote with your pocketbook." How can the solution to the current food crisis be to consume and how can the individual diets of affluent people change the system?
Increasingly, affluent Americans are willing to pay more for traditionally-produced foods. This is paramount, especially in light of the current economic situation, and it is so far necessary to support agricultural production domestically. But it can really only do so much. It can only reach those with the resources of time and money. When looking at something as universal and necessary to basic survival as food, shouldn't we as a society be most concerned with those who face the greatest health risks from unhealthy diets and malnutrition?
Within the local foods movement there is a growing sentiment of elitism and a backlash of discredit coming from ordinary working and middle class people who can't stretch their dollars any further without going further into debt or falling behind on monthly housing payments. When the only solution is to "vote with your pocketbook" power is isolated and given only to those with the funds, education and access to buy local. And the rest—people who don't live near a farmer's market, who don't own a car to drive across town, who are already dependent on emergency food assistance, who don't know how to cook from raw ingredients, who face any number of barriers to the Slow Foods Movement, are excluded. And worse off, they are made to feel that they are supporting a system they may not choose to support EVERY time they eat—voting with their forks. Well, if it's macaroni and cheese, easy dinner and paying the heating bill on time—or a bunch of vegetables you’re not quite sure how to cook or when its gone bad and now you've run over your budget and your kid is hungry, you’re just going to drive through the dollar menu.... What would you choose? And if these are your choices can you really be participating in any meaningful way?
Thankfully there are other ways to voice your concerns about your food. You can get involved in improving your child's school lunch program to include more farm-to-cafeteria food. Or ask the PTA to sponsor a school garden if the school doesn’t already have one (and sell cookbooks or nuts instead of candy and cookies to raise money). You can talk to your local elected representatives about supporting urban farmer’s markets. You can talk to your friends, your church, and community groups about what starting a buying club with a specific truck farmer, dairy, or cheesemaker. Or join a food buying coop that may already exist. You can educate yourself and others about food sovereignty. Your voice matters and needs to be heard. You can vote with more than just your fork. You can also vote with your hands and your ears and your mind, and whatever creative force that moves you.


Picture From: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/huge-knife-and-fork.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gadgetvenue.com/huge-knife-and-fork-06221900/&usg=__3iMuovv-pLaII3WkqzUB2-BulvU=&h=369&w=399&sz=38&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=xHOLdqtGVEmxCM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfork%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

Lobster is cheaper than beef

I just got off the phone with my parents who live in coastal Maine. And what’s the news from home? Well, at my father’s monthly Oddfellows meeting they decided to serve Lobster because it was cheaper than beef for the usual hamburgers. In town, lobster is being sold for $2 per pound! Once tourist season is over, most of the lobstermen sell their catch to Canadian processors, but a snag in the international credit market has snapped the lines of credit to processors who relied on Icelandic banks that have collapsed in the financial crisis. So, without a local market for their goods, lobstermen are coming up short. This is especially daunting for Maine’s lobstermen because the cost of everything else- bait, rope, and diesel fuel for the boat, heating and food cost for the house and kids- is up. It is so fascinating how interconnected and wacky everything has become with the food and financial crises.

COMMENTS NEEDED BY NOVEMBER 3 TO STOP GE PAPAYA IN FLORIDA!

I got this in an e-mail and just think it is so important I had to post it. Please read it and make your concerns known by summiting comments. Thank you!

The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now and November 3, 2008 on a petition that would allow commercial growing and marketing of the first genetically engineered (GE) papaya trees on mainland US soil. If approved, this would remove all regulatory oversight of this GE variety by USDA of a virus-resistant papaya tree known as the Ring Spot Virus Resistant Papaya.

This petition has implications for all other GE tree species, as the USDA and the industry want to gauge what the public's reaction will be. It is critical that all concerned about the threat of GE foods and GE trees respond to this USDA petition. Several hundred field trials of GE trees have been conducted already, many for forest trees, such as poplar, loblolly pine, and sweetgum, that grow on millions of acres in natural environments across the US.

The USDA admits that this GE papaya will contaminate both organic and conventional non-genetically engineered papaya groves if it is approved. Since all commercial papaya trees are cultivars that are relatively cross compatible within the same species, Carica papaya, contamination via GE papaya pollen carried by wind, bees and other insects will infiltrate the papaya groves of organic and conventional growers. The proposed buffer zones between GE papaya and other papayas will not prevent genetic contamination from being spread by pollinating insects.

Approval of this GE papaya tree also further opens the door to the commercialization of GE varieties of other tropical and subtropical tree species. In Hawaii, a previously approved virus resistant papaya has caused extensive contamination of organic, conventional and wild papaya groves on most of the Hawaiian Islands in just a few years. This contamination has spread far more quickly than the USDA predicted in its initial assessment. Once native and cultivated papaya varieties are contaminated with transgenic pollen and the resulting seeds are planted, there is no calling it back.

[Sample comments to submit below. Please add any additional comments of your own.]

1. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064806cf607.

2. Double click on Docket - APHIS-2008-0054 - at the top of the page.

3. Double click on small yellowish box directly below "ADD COMMENTS" in the right hand column.

4. Enter public commenter information. You may add attachments to document your concerns.

5. Double click on NEXT STEP under ACTION at page bottom to enter your comments into Docket.

The following comments are in reference to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0054. I oppose the deregulation of genetically engineered papaya trees for the following reasons:

1. Genetic contamination is a serious and growing threat. Flowers and seeds in organic and conventional papaya groves will become contaminated with GE papaya genes via pollen transported by bees and other insects that travel many miles in search of pollen. The result is that organic and conventional papaya growers will lose their markets for non-GE papayas as DNA testing confirms the contamination, as it already has with GE papayas in Hawaii. An organic tree might remain organic itself, but the pollen, honey and seeds will be contaminated, and trees planted from the GE papaya seeds will bear contaminated fruit.

2. The approval of perennial GE papaya trees would be a dangerous precedent setting step by USDA, opening the floodgates for more GE trees including fruit, nut, ornamental, and paper-pulp and timber species, as well as trees engineered for soil remediation, and other traits. Approximately 80 species and varieties of trees are currently undergoing gene splicing research and development for commercial use. Many of these are native species vital to ecosystems in much of the US.

3. There are serious and mounting concerns about a broad range of health effects associated with consumption of GE crops, GE pollen, and GE-produced honey. For example, consumers may suffer allergic reactions due to unexpected toxins in GE foods. The GE papaya pollen may produce unintended effects such as allergic reactions in sensitive individuals and the USDA has not properly evaluated the potential for allergic reactions. The USDA has also failed to consider the potential for allergens or other novel substances in the GE papayas, GE papaya pollen, or GE papaya-produced honey to interfere with pharmaceuticals being used by consumers.

4. The papaya fruit, seeds, latex, and leaves contain carpaine, an anthelmintic alkaloid that could be dangerous in high doses to the heart (it affects myocardium directly) and the circulatory system. Carpaine is one of the major alkaloid components of papayas, and has been studied for its cardiovascular effects. The USDA has not fully evaluated the health effects of alkaloids such as carpaine and related alkaloids on consumers eating GE papaya, pollen, honey or fruit juices and foods containing GE papaya ingredients. The USDA has not fully studied whether the GE papaya trees produce a different alkaloid chemistry or overall phytochemistry compared to organic, conventional or wild papayas. Other papaya alkaloids and phytochemicals have not been adequately studied for their human health effects. This despite widespread evidence that the genetic engineering of plants can alter expression of genetic traits apparently unrelated to the intentionally inserted trait.

5. There are serious and mounting concerns about the genetic stability of the artificial gene combinations and the artificially inserted genes used in GE papaya trees. The USDA claims that the papaya ring spot viral resistance gene and other inserted genes are sufficiently genetically stable, but the testing has only been performed for approximately ten years and not the entire, decades-long pollen-producing life span of a papaya tree. Over the long life of a papaya tree, an RNA virus such as papaya ring spot virus is susceptible to many cycles of recombination, leading to the creation of new plant viruses that could infect a wide variety of plants. This can also occur with the viral DNA that has been inserted into these papayas.

6. The deregulatory petition completely ignores potential effects on bees and other pollinator species. Today honey bee colony collapse disorder known as CCD is a serious and growing problem for apiaries and bee-pollinated crops including in Florida where the GE papaya trees will be grown. Although unintended effects are common in GE crops (and are part of regulatory human health assessments), there is extremely little assessment of possible environmental impacts from unintended effects. There are no studies that would allow us to evaluate the potential hazards of GE tree pollen or GE papaya tree pollen for a variety of insects, or for consumers of honey. We also do not know how animals and insects that browse on papaya leaves might be affected.

7. The USDA's environmental assessment admits that the GE papaya readily hybridizes within its species Carica papaya. Thus, there may be a significant potential for gene flow into native perennial papaya varieties. GE papaya trees will be long lived, and capable of contaminating orchards and native papaya tree populations for several decades. One GE papaya tree will be able to produce thousands of GE seeds and extensive quantities of pollen, and will be capable of spreading fertile GE papaya seeds and pollen into the environment for many years. The petition did not adequately evaluate the relative fitness of GE papaya varieties as compared to native papayas; it is possible that the GE varieties would become more successful in natural settings, and out-compete non-GE varieties, as they have in parts of Hawaii. We challenge the USDA's spurious claim that contamination would be positive by reducing potential reservoirs for harboring the papaya ring spot virus in the wild; this claim is not supported by any data.

8. There has been no short-term or long-term safety testing or feeding trials for toxicity or other adverse effects of the construct of eight genes inserted into the GE papaya trees. GE papayas have not been tested on animals, birds or humans for safety. Toxicity tests are necessary since unintended genetic effects are known to occur with gene splicing. USDA has ignored the need for scientific studies of gene splicing and for comprehensive studies of the environmental consequences of GE plantings since the USDA has not adequately consulted with the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their regulatory input.

What the Soybean!!?!

What the Soybean!!?!
The European Commission just approved its first Genetically Engendered soybean, so aptly named “LibertyLink” on Sept. 8 in a so-called written procedure after the Council of Ministers (a democratically elected legislative body) reached a decision of no decision (either approving or rejecting it) last July. This is a HUGE victory for agribusiness and a bleak page for environmentalists, farmers and really anyone who eats in this world.

What happened Europe?
Europe was the only place in the world that was strong enough to stand up to the bio-tech industry. When GE soy, sugar beets and corn first hit farms back in 1996-97, citizens across the continent went out into the night and literally dug up fields of GE crops, sending a message that they didn’t want what Monsanto or DuPont had to offer! As a result, Europe, which is politically and economically powerful enough to mean something to these multi-national corporations, banned all GE foods from entering her boarders. Because genetically engineered crops have such a huge impact on their environment, this was a huge success for conservative farmers and concerned citizens; likewise it was a tremendous thorn in the back of agribusiness. GE crops by their very nature as plants cross-pollinate with other plants. It is not possible to plant GE crops in one area and not contaminate the region, as far as the wind blows. This has been a huge problem for organic farmers in particular who wish to preserve the genetic integrity of their plants. This is one reason that so many farmers and informed citizens have rejected the release of GE crops without sufficient testing. Once a crop is planted and goes to seed there is no going back. Since the ban, biotech firms have been committed to finding ways to erode this powerful legislation. Today it looks to me like they have been successful. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy reported Friday that:

Approval of [LibertyLink and pending Round Up Ready Yield 2] would largely address the problem of how the EU should handle feed shipments for its livestock industries that contain trace elements of GMOs not authorized in the EU, but approved in other countries,…the likelihood of such unauthorized traces in feed shipments from the United States has been reduced, according to U.S. sources. As a result, it is no longer as urgent to develop a policy for how to respond to feed contamination with unauthorized GMOs, they said.
Yes, “unauthorized traces” of GMOs have been reduced because they are now authorized! And it is no longer urgent to develop a policy of how to respond to contamination because the contamination has been approved.

Biotechnology firms pressured the EU to approve LibertyLink as a way to avoid a feed shortage for its livestock industry, since the EU is largely dependent on outside vegetable protein sources to feed its growing meat industry.

I don’t really know what to say, I am so devastated by this decision. The most appalling thing though is that this story is not even being covered. Not in the New York Times, not on NPR, I didn’t even see anything on the Greenpeace website. Please help to spread the word about what is going on here.

To learn more about the technical aspects of LibertyLink check out this article http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=502 For the full IATP article see: http://www.tradeobservatory.org/index.cfm

A day in the life

This morning I woke up before the roosters. I know this because I couldn’t hear them in the bathroom where my father has plugged in a tiny baby monitor transmitting to the “adolescent” chicken coop. This morning could have been a fatal blow to the future of one bull-calf’s lineage- but more on that later. I went outside in the tall wet grass and climbed up into the passenger side of my dad’s great big pick-up truck. He already had the trailer hitched up and Alex, the 6-week-old bullRJH, pacing inside. We had to drive far to the vet’s and I could only imagine the gas mileage with this load. None of the vets in or around town treat large (AKA farm) animals, my dad told me. He rubbed his fingers together, “there’s no money in treating large animals. Farmers don’t have any money.” The Vet finally came out to see Alex, chuckling as he did at my father who listened to his wife and decided against castrating the little guy today. My mother convinced him that Alex, unrelated to the female heifer calf back home, would be more valuable as a stud than as a series of steaks. My dad was worried that nobody would want to buy him as a stud, and for good reason. Farmers across the country are slashing their herds. The reason? A 50% increase in grain costs. Ironically, last year’s grain harvest was the largest in the planet’s history. Explanations for the spike in grain prices abound and most of the big reasons- increased fuel costs, bad weather, ethanol- help to explain the current spike in food prices, but they also expose an enormous liability within our current food system. Ultimately, if grain prices are increasing this year, the price of meat is bound to follow suit by next year. And who knows, maybe the nescient food economy will begin to offer farmers a real living wage that reflects the good work farmers do! I am hopeful that change to our fundamental way of life, down to the very food we produce and eat, is possible.

The new Economy of

55 gallons of gasoline, siphoned from my boat
A shovel
A chainsaw
21 feet of rope
A cord of wood
A jar of peanut butter.

Each of these stolen from wealthy homes in East Blue Hill, Maine.

"What with the price of oil and the price of food, I'll tell ya, if it's not bolded down it's as good as gone already." Men talking out at the boatyard, gathered there for the annual lobster bake to which NOT all members of the Village Improvement Association were invited.

"And I just thought it was me, having a string of bad luck or maybe somebody didn't like me too much, you say this happened to you too?"

"Yeah, it's going to be a tough winter, especially if we get a cold one."

A few good (some non-western) Ideas

OK, today I want to share some really exciting news from around the world that you probably didn’t read in the New York Times or hear on NPR.

1. Ecuador is proposing to recognize nature- ecological systems- as having inalienable rights (like the right, and therefore the protection of its right, to exist) This is super exciting in terms of environmental law because if nature has a right to exist, humans and corporations and states will need to show substantial or just cause to infringe on those rights. You can read the article here: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=479 Very exciting. If you think this is an awesome step in the right direction towards a sustainable human future in harmony with our environment, as I do, I urge you to propose integrating this language into your own social pact at the familial, community and city levels. In Boulder, CO, a group of women are working to integrate the recognition of nature’s right to exist into the language dictating the town’s “transition” to a world beyond peak oil.
2. On that note the Transition Town movement is pretty exciting if you’re not plugged into that here is some information: http://www.transitiontowns.org/
3. Finally, I read that the country of Bhutan measures their GDH, that is, their Gross Domestic Happiness. They point out how the GDP measures things but not the impact of those things (pollution, for example). In Bhutan the focus is on not only what is gained but also what is lost and whatever tradeoffs there might be. OK. That’s all I got for today!

Muffin-Eater

Muffin-Eater

Up up up above the clouds
Somewhere between Denver and Huston,
I awoke to the jangle of soda bottles on a beverage cart.

Sitting as I was
In the second-to-last row of the airplane
I woke just in time to see the cart disappear into the steward’s quarters.

A man to my left was eating a muffin.
Across the isle, I spotted another man with exactly the same type of muffin.
“Did they give you that muffin?” I exclaimed.

Being fed on the airplane was like a throwback to pre-911 travel and with it the national tradition of complaining about soggy bread and frozen milk- but at least there was something to eat if you got hungry!

The stewardess handed me my very own muffin. I was voracious, breaking pieces of moist bread. I held a piece in my hand, staring at the speckles of blue food coloring, reminiscent of blueberries. What flavor was this muffin and why did it have to be reminiscent of good food? The only flavor I detected was sugar. Now I thought about this muffin and its food miles and carbon footprint and all this post-modern politico-food ethic shit that I love to shoot, and it dawned on me what a fascinating microcosm of the complexity of the whole food-miles debate this now sacred muffin and muffin-eater could become. I thought about renaming my blog muffin-eater. Really.

So, to count the food miles of this particular airborne indulgence I am confronted with three questions: 1. Where to begin. 2. Where to end. And perhaps the most convoluted 3. Which miles to attribute to me alone, without muffin and which to bequeath upon said muffin.

I began my travels this morning in Denver. It could be said that I traveled all the way from that metropolis to indeed eat this muffin. Yet, this muffin was not my sole motivation for this expedition across the sky. Matthew J. Mariola in his recent article The Local industrial Complex? Questioning the Link Between local Foods and Energy Use, claims that a piece of fruit or vegetable grown and consumed locally could possibly have a greater carbon footprint than one produced across the globe and shipped to a grocery outlet. The sticking point being that while a pint of raspberries, for example, might travel 500 miles from where it is harvested to where it is sold, that individual package of raspberries can only be accountable for a small fraction of the total fuel usage since it is not traveling alone. A similar pint of raspberries picked on a farm in rural Maine and trucked 20 miles to the local farmer’s market via that farmer’s gas-gusting flatbed pickup truck must be accountable for a much greater fraction of the fuel consumed since the small farmer is trucking much less and using a less efficient vehicle. Further, Mariola points out that the purchaser attending the market may herself have driven 20 miles across town to attend the market where she finally bought the berries, thereby doubling their carbon footprint.

Extending Mariola’s argument to the saga of the muffin, I would include my journey from Denver and the muffin’s journey from wherever it was baked (on board… over New Mexico?) as well as the journeys of each ingredient from their respective harvest locations.

Now, the tallying of food miles stops either when I accept the on-board treat or when I consume it, which fortunately for this analysis occurred simultaneously.
But how many of these total miles can I really attribute to the muffin alone? Mariola includes the miles a shopper travels to attend a local market or pick up a produce box at a farm stand. For myself I can say that I will not drive anywhere just buy one item. Similarly, I did not go on this flight just to eat a muffin. In attempting to reduce the impact of your food choices a plethora variables and obstacles come into play. And I think Matthew Mariola is right to point out that the “greenest” option might sometimes surprise you. Here’s another interesting article about food miles and the ecological impact of food choices: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/apr/science/ee_foodmiles.html

I do think it is important to remember that there are other important benefits to eating locally produced food- it builds community and relationships with our environment, and sometimes, as in the case of honey, eating local can acclimate us to our environments building tolerance for allergens and the like.

When it comes down to it, you do what you can and try not to stress out too much because after all, “we are all spiritual beings having a physical experience.” And it is pretty ridiculous to count the food miles of your muffin when you yourself are flying across the country~ the single biggest indicator of a person’s ecological footprint is wealth; which makes sense since wealthy people consume more….

thoughts on the trans-fat bans

When I saw that California passed a statewide ban on trans-fats I was exuberant. Validated. Perhaps for a moment even conceited.

“I knew it!” I thought to myself, “Everyone thought I was some health zealot, refusing to eat at the greasy spoon. Now the Big City AND the whole state of California agrees, trans-fats are poison!”

As someone who at least attempts to honor my body I have often times found myself at a restaurant, maybe a cute little mom-and-pops, maybe a grease pit chosen by friends, when a particular anxiety creeps over me. Others of you who are picky eaters might be able to relate: I sit with the menu clutched in hand, scanning the bold typeface for clues as to what exactly the stuffed French toast is stuffed with and if I could just get the fruit “sauce” on the side.
So, this whole idea of banning trans-fats appeals to me as I will be released from the unpleasant chore of cross-examining my poor wait staff every time I eat out.

For a brief moment I traveled to California in my mind, walking along some strip imagining the plethora of eateries throwing their doors open to me and my health-minded diet. Why, I could even patron the KFC in California… SNAP.

OK, back to reality. Maybe a ban on trans-fat won’t really solve my food toxophobia. Already I have read reports that trans-fats are simply being replaced by interesterified oils which may pose even greater health risks. (For more info see this wiseGEEK article http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-interesterified-fat.htm)

This leads me into what I think is the most interesting facet of the whole trans-fat-ban debate: What is the state’s role in regulating what its citizens eat? And who will this ban have the greatest effect on? The ban affects primarily baked goods that are not packaged- AKA small artisans. It seems to me that if the state is going to ban something it should ban it across the board- in packaged and unpackaged foods alike. Please post a comment with your thoughts!