Our recent discussion on “What should we eat and how should it be produced raised the very good point that as we talk about sustainability and food safety, we need to think about the safety of those working on the farm.

I found this through the Eat.Drink.Better blog: Olivia Tamayo made history last week when she became the first female migrant worker to successfully bring a sexual harassment suit against her employer to a federal jury. Last week, a federal court upheld a decision that Harris Farms was guilty of sexual harassment and discrimination, finding that Harris Farms inappropriately responded after Ms. Tamayo was raped three times by her direct supervisor. [rape is sexual harassment?]

An Op-ed piece in the LA Times reports that this is the first case. Hers is the only suit brought by a female farmworker to reach a federal jury. They raise the valid question of how many more cases have not been prosecuted.

In fairness to our nation’s farmers and ranchers, the workers at farms and ranches I know and have visited are treated as well as they would be in any other jobs. Often, immigrant workers have employment for several members of their extended family. Many have good long-term relationships with their employers.

How sad it is that we often give more thought about how our food choices affect the welfare of the environment or the welfare of animals, than the safety or welfare of those who participated in the production. When people have issues about how our food is produced, it is seems most often directed against animal production or corn and other grains. Our food system for fresh produce is built on the backs of migrant workers. Their plight gets relatively little attention in the mainstream media.

We have animal welfare labeling program for our meat, egg and milk products to help us choose food from companies that have pledged to abide by certain standards. We have “Fair Trade” labels for imported goods. How many of you have heard of, or seek out the United Farm Workers label?

Ethical Eating, part 2: Looking for Answers from What Would Jesus Eat?: Our tendency to look for magic bullets and instant answers only substitutes one problem for another. Global vegetarianism won’t save the world, neither will going totally local.

Study: Healthy ‘Depots’ Discovered in Beef Brisket: from Beef Myths. the fat in beef brisket from corn-fed steers contains nearly 50 percent oleic acid, and oleic acid increases the longer cattle are fed a corn-based diet, according to research by Steve Smith at Texas A&M University.

Obesity and Climate Change? from economic sense. Something that sounds like it could have come out of the Onion; Environmentalists claim the obese are major contributors to global warming. So how does how an obese individual’s carbon footprint from sitting on the couch all day compare with that of “some skinny Barbie girl” driving to a smoothie bar after work, having an organic smoothie, then driving to a climate controlled gym to spend 2 hours utilizing their electric powered equipment before stopping by the local organic market? [Sara’s n.b. I am NOT implying that obese people all sit on the couch all day, nor that I agree with the conclusion] A pretty good summary and discussion can be found on Blogher.com

Is it possible to Eat Healthy on a Budget? Another Blogher discussion about how the least healthy foods are often the least expensive. Lots of good links here and some encouraging words.

How to teach Sustainability: from Slowfood Blog. The author of a program to teach sustainability in schools states that “Education for Sustainability” is much different from “greening.” Education for sustainability looks to integrate children with the natural world not disintegrate their relationship with it.

Are Organic Tomatoes Better? a story from NPR.org. A UC Davis study has found that organically grown tomatoes are richer in certain kinds of flavonoids than conventionally grown tomatoes. The lead scientist points out many confounding factors. The answer may be more linked to nitrogen availability (lower in organic fertilizers) than the organic process itself. An unusually balanced set of conclusions that seek not to convert the world to nor discount the value of organic growing methods.

The Onion on GM Tomatoes: As long as we’ve already mention The Onion and organic tomatoes, I thought we ought to inclue this link (found through Gristmill). Apparently Geneticists at the California Institute of Technology have developed a tomato with a 31 percent larger price tag than a typical specimen of the vine-ripened fruit through gene-splicing.

The plethora of news lately about the global food crisis has left me both concerned and curious about what’s going on in the world. This crisis comes at the heels of dropping significantly more at the grocery store for the same products, and reevaluating our need for organics or Whole Foods when we look at our budgets. Those organic strawberries aren’t looking so super anymore when they’re $6 a pint.

Of course, finances are one thing–what about those starving children in Myanmar who have no access to food, who can’t be so picky?

Pardon a harried mother’s confusion at all the different stories I’m reading. The point of this entry was specifically to direct you all to this report, posted by MarketWatch.

Compared to averages for 1998 through 2007, the report forecast that prices, adjusted for inflation, are projected to be:

• 20% higher for beef and pork;

• 30% higher for raw and white sugar;

• 40-60% higher for wheat, maize and skim milk powder;

• 60% higher for butter and oilseeds;

• 80% higher for vegetable oils (driven by food and bio-fuels demands)

Reading that, I’m feeling a little less inclined towards collecting leftovers these days (I have to pay for two boys’ college education, you know). And ordering take-out is, well, out — since obesity contributes to global warming. Sigh.

On a happier note, MarketWatch also gave me 8 reasons to celebrate $8-a-gallon gas, since it’ll be a catalyst for change. While it’s a tad over-optimistic, it’s true that we’re all going to have to adjust in some significant ways, and sooner than we think.

Oh yeah, like I’m going to be able to address that in a single blog post….

When you get down to it, what we eat and how it is produced is the Meta-issue of this blog. Our questions about food safety, technology, health, environment, food prices and availability, environmental impact, etc. all end up being answered by the choices we make as consumers (what we buy), and as producers (how we grow it).

So much of what I read is narrowly focused on a single problem or single solution. In a larger context there is an entire web of cause and effect around each of these single issues. We have a food system that cannot be separated from our economic, environmental, political and ethical/religious systems.

If we were to design a food system from scratch, what would it look like? Let’s start by creating a wish list. Please give us your opinions about what should be on our list, and in what order of importance.

• Safe: By most accounts we have the safest food supply in the world, in terms of food-borne illnesses. How do changes in how our food is produced affect safety (i.e. locally produced without USDA oversight, non-pastuerized milk, intensive/monoculture vs. extensive/mixed systems).
• Affordable: Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than almost any other country. Can we/should we be willing to pay higher prices in order to achieve some of our other food goals? What about the impact on those with lower incomes?
• Nutritious: The basic purpose of food is to nourish us. In reality, flavor, convenience and price probably play a larger role in our choices.
• Sustainable: We need to produce our food in a way that doesn’t rob Peter to pay Paul. Can we be truly sustainable without decreasing our food supply and having devastating effects on some of the other issues here?
• Environmentally responsible: Notice the avoidance of the term “friendly” here. If we really were going to be environmentally friendly, we’d choose not to perpetuate our species. Given that we choose to exists, how can we care for the earth and still meet our food needs?
• Practical: It’s common knowledge that fresh is best, but let’s face it, most of us ‘give’ on other issues for convenience. I bet most people wouldn’t put “easy” high on the list of food priorities, but voting with their dollars shows otherwise.
• Ethical: Food issues are tied at a gut level to our belief system. Don’t try to talk an ethically-motivated vegan out of their position through scientific arguments. What is “ethical” in food production? Do we hold our food production system to a higher ethical standard than we do our other consumer goods (sweat shops in India for textiles, environmental impact of steel/plastic/transportation)?
• Feasible: I”m a big local food supporter, but realize that a totally local food system is not currently feasible in many areas of the country. Many of the production methods I use myself on my own ranch are difficult (impossible?) to implement on a national scale.

What did I miss? How do these rank in importance relative to each other?

I love Wired magazine — love, love, love it — because it’s forward thinking, filled with new ideas, geeky-hip (like I hope I am) and, most of all, is not afraid to break taboos to get us looking at things in new, arguably more rational ways.

Case in point is this month’s cover story, “Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green,” which tells us that “winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism’s sacred cows.” The article then goes on to suggest 10 “Green Heresies” we may all need to embrace if we are committed to slowing down/reversing the carbon emissions choking our planet.

Two of those heresies directly relate to our interests here at Down to Earth:

Heresy No. 3: Organics Are Not the Answer. Wired explains how conventional agriculture can be easier on the Planet.

Heresy No. 6: Accept Genetic Engineering. Feeding the more than six billion people exacts a heavy environmental toll. The only way to make it easier on Mother Earth is to use science to create super-efficient foodstuffs, which could put a real dent in global emissions.

After years of helping run an organic restaurant, no one was more surprised than I was to find out that the organic label was a marketing designation not supported by science.  The locovores (like Sara) have it right when it comes to reducing the carbon footprint.

“Too often the trend in our society is for people to be separated from either other, to be cut off from the great mass of humanity, and in doing so to be dehumanized a little bit more with each step.”

I was going to put a link to 25 Ways to Help a Human Being Today from Zen Habits in next week’s “weekly earthlinks”, because it is off-topic for this blog. After pondering, I thought it deserved to be posted on its own.  After all, what can be more “Down To Earth” than connecting with a fellow person?

This is a nice reminder of how little it takes to make a difference in somebody’s life.

Men are from Science, Women are from Fashion and Style: Blogher (cyber-central for women bloggers) chews through the NYT’s placement in the Style section of an article about how women are behind in science. Made me wonder about science education (or lack thereof) and how it affects our ability to think critically and intelligently about some of the food issues we discuss here.

Farm Bill Passes, Vetoed, Veto (sort of) overridden: From American Farmland Trust. Although a seemingly dry topic, the 2008 Farm Bill has some important provisions for nutrition programs, farmland preservation, healthy and local foods and conservation progams.

Who Eats Rice, Anyway? From Chow. A discussion of how agricultural research budgets across the world have declined dramatically in the last few decades—bottoming out in time for this year’s food crisis. The US is in the midst of slashing support for research that focuses on improving crops vital to agriculture in poor countries.

Which Pots and Pans are Safest - Unearthing My Mother’s Cookware: From The Not Quite Crunchy Parent. Turns out Mom might have known best, after all.

Déjà chew: The food price crisis in context : A guest post on Ethicurean that shows the solution to the world’s food crisis is not a simple matter of people food vs. animal feed nor crops for food vs. crops for fuel.

Toilet Paper Rolls? Yes, Toilet Paper Rolls From Green Mom Finds. 101 things to do with a toilet paper roll before you recycle it (102 if you count the original intended use).

I’ve had a couple of e-mails from people in the beef and pork industries in the last couple weeks. The gist of their gripe is that the local, pasture-raised beef and pork I sell is causing damage to animal ag industries. They have some legitimate points: “Negative campaigning” against traditional agriculture is an oft-used marketing method for foods bearing labels of alternative production methods. All too often at the Farmer’s Markets, I hear that food from the grocery store is not safe, is loaded with chemicals and hormones or is causing everything from global warming to early puberty to worldwide hunger. I hear all sorts of exaggerations of reported ill-effects, many of which fall into the realm of urban myths.

It is these very issues that are part of the reason I blog. We’ve barely scratched the surface here with posts on early puberty, organic honey and free-range chickens, cloning, food labels and a variety of other topics. There is never a shortage of material; just a shortage of time to do the background research to provide a balanced and accurate review of the issue at hand.

So, by promoting our locally raised meats, am I contributing to the downfall of American Animal Agriculture? I maintain that I am promoting it. Here’s why:

• There is no better spokesperson for agriculture than a producer. Consumers and producers are usually separated by multiple companies. When I sell local, I reconnect the consumer to agriculture. I remind them that ultimately all our food is produced by PEOPLE, not corporate conglomerates.
• When I hear wildly exaggerated claims and misconceptions, I can correct them. The same quirk of human nature that causes people to believe their neighbor before they’ll believe a corporate expert works in reverse too.
• I have customers eating meat that wouldn’t otherwise. For their own reasons (whether I agree with them or not), many of my customers are willing to buy meat from me, when they buy much less or none otherwise. How can this be hurting the industry?
• The products I sell DO taste better than run-of-the-mill grocery store items. They also cost more ($2-$4/lb more). Most people agree that homegrown tomatoes taste better than (even organic) grocery store tomatoes. Why does it seem so surprising that homegrown, individually managed, top genetics beef tastes better? If this creates a demand for higher quality products, isn’t that a good thing?

There is a knee-jerk dislike of movements like local, grass-fed, or organic among many of my more traditional Animal Industry colleagues, and a similar distrust of corporate agriculture among many of my customers. I hope, in my small way, I am building some bridges.

One of my favorite sources for balanced info on food, nutrition and food production, is the International Food Information Council (IFIC). On May 21 at 2:30 p.m. EDT they’re offering a webcast of the findings from their third annual survey, Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes toward Food, Nutrition & Health. If you’re interested in seeing the latest research from a reputable source, you can register for the web cast here. Among the findings reported by IFIC are what they’ve termed seven”Diet Disconnects.” The study notes that 82% of surveyed consumers believe they know how to safely prepare their food, but more than half fail to follow simple preventative measures such as using a food thermometer, or using separate cutting boards for prep work of raw meats and produce.

Other “disconnects” address understanding the link between healthy foods and physical activity to maintain a healthy weight. Boy, this is an area that rings true for me — I’m in a constant struggle to eat healthy foods.  Recently I started keeping a food diary which has been a startling revelation of why my jeans seem to be “shrinking”  — my dryer is off the hook, and I can only blame myself.  There’s no single magic fix for getting food/activity in healthy balance, and we all have different metabolisms, etc., but the secret to keep me on track in the day is the disconnect number 4: breakfast.

The survey reports that 92% of Americans agree breakfast is important, but fewer than 46% actually eat breakfast every day. I’ve personally found that if I don’t have a healthy breakfast (and mine consists of oatmeal, berries and a lean portion of protein such as Canadian bacon) I might as well write off the rest of the day. If you’re not able to tune in to the webcast but want to know more about the survey, check out the report here.

Our friends at Barfblog have posted this article from the NY Times, which says that babies prefer organic formulas because they use cane sugar, making them significantly sweeter.

I’m all for buying natural food for my children, and organic formula seems to make sense, right? And if my baby likes the way it tastes, isn’t that a win-win?

“No health problems in babies have been associated with Similac Organic. But to pediatricians, there are risks in giving babies cane sugar: Sucrose can harm tooth enamel faster than other sugars; once babies get used to its sweeter taste, they might resist less sweet formulas or solid foods; and some studies suggest that they might overeat, leading to rapid weight gain in the first year, which is often a statistical predictor of childhood obesity.”

We all love big, bouncy babies, but this article makes me pause. How many mothers think about over-consumption when their child is upset and hungry? And how many of them will, like one of the mothers quoted in the article, re-think their formula choice after finding this out?

We tend to just grab a product that says “organic” and head towards the check-out, but there’s a lot more behind the labels then we take the time to find out. I want what’s best for my children, and as both a mother and someone who wants to stay informed I have to make time to find out the facts. And as a bonus, this helps me teach my children to make better choices. But what’s the right choice here?

PS: Daddy Types has a great take on this, too.

TAGS: organic; baby; food labels