Now that summer is on it’s way, and picnics, warmer weather and cookouts abound, it’s a good time to brush up on food safety. Most food-borne illness can be prevented by proper handling, cooking and storing of food (none of which increase our tax-burden!).

The Partnership for Food Safety Education has a very easy-to-understand site for food safety tips. I particularly like the Mythbusters section. There are also plenty of downloads and some kids activities.

The American Meat institute also has a site that includes sections on safe handling of meat and FAQs about production and processing practices.

For those of you with a little more political bent, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association launched a new site; foodsafety.org. This one is targeted more toward FDA funding, federal legislation and current food safety news stories.

In the realm of the topics about which this blog covers, two of my dreams are to see the industry take consumer concerns more seriously and for consumers to base decisions more on facts than sensationalism.

There is encouraging news from the National Meat Assn. (NMA), American Meat Institute (AMI) and National Milk Producers Federation. They have filed a citizen’s petition to ban ALL cattle that cannot walk (”downers”) from being processed for human consumption. The full article can be found on the Feedstuffs Foodlink blog. The petition addresses a rule that allows the attending public health veterinarian to allow animals that become non-ambulatory to be processed, at his/her discretion.

Virtually none of these cattle would pose any sort of health threat. Most cattle that go down during processing are just at the natural end of their lifespan, not ravaged with disease. The petition was filed specifically because of the public’s concerns and as a move to bolster consumer confidence in our meat supply.

Kudos to the industry on this one for putting consumer concerns ahead of a few extra dollars.

The seemingly unlikely partnership of organic farming and GMOs is in the news again in the Washington Post. This article supports Lisa’s post from earlier this month, and again challenges us to abandon caricatures and look at the synergies.

The article also mentions a new book entitled Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, by Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, a wife and husband team of plant geneticist and organic farmer. The Amazon.com review characterizes it as:

“a tale of two marriages. The first is that of Raoul and Pam, the authors, and is a tale of the passions of an organic farmer and a plant genetic scientist. The second is the potential marriage of two technologies-organic agriculture and genetic engineering. Like all good marriages, both include shared values, lively tensions, and reinvigorating complementarities. “

I succumbed and ordered it. I’ll read it as soon as my few minutes of spare time allow and post my review.

Today was one of those serendipitous days.  After days of heavy rain and general dreariness in northern Virginia, the sun was out and I was making a trek to my favorite nursery to select plants for my own little backyard “farm.”  (Ok, it’s a townhome patio, but trust me, it is very labor intensive.) 

(Serendipity 1)  Driving back I glanced at my BlackBerry and saw that Becki had posted a comment regarding my post on the internet game that sends rice to poor countries, FreeRice. Thrilled that someone had actually read the blog, and then taken the time to respond, I pulled into a parking lot to read her message (yes, safety first—no texting or reading email while driving on the Beltway).

Becki wanted me to know how much she enjoys the FreeRice wordplay, and shared that “I know the little bit I play doesn’t make a difference by itself, but together with others, it really does. And isn’t that how all important differences are made, anyhow?”

Yes, Becki, that IS how important differences are made – your message struck me as dually simple and profound as I continued my drive listening to the program Fresh Air on National Public Radio (NPR). (Alert readers will note that this is Serendipity 2.) The reporter was interviewing Paul Polak of the nonprofit International Development Enterprises who has spent 25 years working to eradicate poverty.” The discussion with Mr. Polak was about his new book, Out of Poverty, in which he discusses a new approach to agriculture to help resource-poor farmers improve their living standards and emerge from poverty.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is a bit off-topic for Down to Earth, but it is an issue of concern to parents. My question — should it be? I honestly don’t know and want our favorite science geek’s — Sara’s — feedback.

There’s been a lot of media commentary lately about possible dangers from plastic softeners called pthalates, which include chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP). They are often used in children’s toys and in baby bottles. Lick a rubber duckie — isn’t it nasty? To us maybe, but not so much to teething babies. And imagine my alarm — both my children were primarily breast fed, but we used our fair share of plastic bottles as well (heated in the microwave!! So shoot a working mother!!). Not to mention those delightful drooling years of watching a newly-minted crawler cruise around with something — anything — plastic and soothing in their teething mouths.

Below are links to two articles on this topic. One is the lead piece in today’s Washington Post, which lays out one side of the issue very well. “The Plastics Revolution: It Changed Our World, But Are We Trading Convenience for Safety?” According to this article, “independent panels sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration examined the data on plastics safety and drew conflicting conclusions.” It then goes into a veritable “he said, she said” of industry, activists and scientists on both sides essentially calling the other side morally bankrupt.

The other is by the founder and former leader of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, using the BPA issue as an example of “why he left Greenpeace.” Moore (who, admittedly, many dismiss as a corporate shill) says it’s the lack of respect for science in the enviro community that drove him away from Greenpeace. He cites the furor over plastic softeners as a case in point. He quotes the Consumer Product Safety Commission saying “If DINP is to be replaced in children’s products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP.”

Anyway — we may not be eating DINP and BPA, but our babies and toddlers are. (And we are too, because they are included tupperware and the trays in frozen food entrees and just about everything else.)

Sara — science geek — help a troubled mom!

Update: There’s a new article on threats from plastics in the New York Times.

TAGS: plastics

A front page article in The New York Times notes that the combination of food prices and grain shortages are causing some to rethink their opposition to crops improved through biotechnology, often known as “GMOs” or genetically modified organisms.

As a long-time supporter of these crops, I have to think “it’s about time.” But another part of me thinks it’s tragic that this reluctant acceptance stems from people literally starving and rioting in the streets because trade policies, politics and sometimes well-intentioned, but misinformed, consumers.

I’ve been engaged in the issue of biotech acceptance for nearly a decade. It’s apparent that when these crops (most commonly corn, soybeans, cotton and canola) were introduced in the early to mid-90s, industry was focused on sharing the benefits with their immediate customer, farmers. And U.S. farmers quickly embraced this new tool in what has been termed the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. But what wasn’t readily apparent was that the ultimate customer was the consumer with the shopping cart. A host of groups saw this information gap as an opportunity to “educate consumers” and launched anti-GMO campaigns which successfully slowed these new crops’ adoption in some geographies (notably Europe).
Read the rest of this entry »

Just a quick post to share with you this innovative site, Free Rice. If you have kids, you may already know about it – I saw it featured on TV this week. It’s a fun resource to help anyone increase their vocabulary and at the same time send rice to those who need it. Just go to the site and select the correct definition of the featured word. For every correct answer, 20 grains of rice are distributed. That may not sound like much, but since the game’s inception last fall, more than 27 BILLION grains have been distributed through the U.N.’s World Food Program. There’s even a video that shows you where the rice is going. This seems like a great teaching moment to help your kids learn multiple lessons while helping others. And it’s great for grown-ups, too. I have to confess being hooked on computer solitaire, but am “reprogramming” myself to go to this site instead when I need a few minutes of game time to clear the mind. And the guilt of “playing” on my computer is offset by knowing I’ve made a tiny bit of difference in some one’s life.

I’ve been meaning to post something about our ranch and my background. In the meantime, an article came out in this week’s Texas Country World newspaper that gives a glimpse of both: “Good Management Yields Tastier Beef”

Although it is a really nice article, it is a good example of how misinformation gets into the media. Sticking to his principles of independent journalism, the reporter declined my request to check the article for accuracy before it was printed. Even with his positive outlook on our ranch and the best intentions, there are a number of bits that are wrong: We raise Red Angus, not Red Brangus; most of our cattle grade Choice, not Prime. Although neither of these are likely to sink our beef business, they do have potential to do some harm, since we pride ourselves on the purity of the Angus beef we sell and the integrity of the claims we make about our beef.

I see this type of thing (or much worse) almost daily in my newswatch of technology coverage. One of the things we are trying to do here at Down to Earth Blog is to clear up the fog and address some of the urban myths that are perpetuated. Sometime, I’ll tell you the REAL story of Dolly the Sheep….

A short plug here for one of my favorite organizations: The American Farmland Trust.

Founded in 1980 by a group of farmers and conservationists concerned about the rapid loss of the nation’s farmland to development, American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting our nation’s strategic agricultural resources. Working with farmers and ranchers, political leaders and community activists, AFT has helped to permanently protect more than a million acres of America’s best farm and ranch land.

The are having a fund drive, and you can get a cool “No Farms, No Food” tote bag with your donation. Even if you can’t donate, check out their website for some great resources on supporting sustainable agriculture.

There’s an interesting article in a recent post on the NY Times Dot Earth blog: “Can People Have Meat and a Planet, Too? The first international conference on manufacturing meat was held earlier this month in Norway. Manufactured meat is produced by growing muscle cells in culture in a laboratory. The technology can produce ground-meat type products such as chicken nuggets and burgers. It is a long way from being economically more feasible than current production. There are also numerous regulatory issues and product safety testing, so it will be years before this becomes a consumer choice issue.

I admit my first reaction was envisioning “Soylent Chicken” and a big yuck!

Taking a second, more practical look, however, one can see some advantages: Cultured meat avoids animal welfare issues (”no animals were harmed in the making of this Happy Meal”) because no animals are involved. Theoretically, cultured meat is produced with less impact on the environment. Because it is produced under controlled conditions, food safety should be higher and nutritional profiles can also be modified and improved.

I’ve been listening to NPR’s Morning Edition series on food shortages and rising food costs worldwide. I was surprised to hear this is the 3rd year in a row that world food production has fallen short of world food consumption. The answer to increased production needs has been more industrialized agriculture; bringing along with it environmental and welfare concerns. There is no doubt that concentrated animal protein production produces environmental pollutants and costs more in terms of fossil fuels than pasture-based production. Contrary to the blanket statement that eating meat is bad for the environment, grazing animals are much more efficient at converting solar energy(via vegetation) to protein than we are.

I am a big proponent (and producer) of local, pasture-based agricultural products. I am also a beef connoisseur; I can describe a unique flavor and texture profile for each animal we have harvested, and even give them “Wine Spectator” type ratings in my mind. For my family and my customers, there is no doubt this is a great option. But what about the rest of the country and the world? My beef is priced equal or just above the top meat-case beef at the upscale local grocery. I can’t sell it any cheaper or I can’t pay my ranch mortgage. Can we feed the world without industrialized agriculture?

The Dot Earth article quotes Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University’s Program for the Human Environment as saying that the trend toward concentrated food production will eventually lead to manufactured meat. When it comes down to it, I think I feel the same way about “cultured meat” that I did about “Textured vegetable protein” when it came out. I don’t think I’ll have any desire to eat it myself, but I can see where it meets some needs.