West Michigan’s small-scale alternative food systems - and the future of such endeavors, from Ethicurean.

Who’ll Cure Our Kids, Big Pharma Or Small Farmers? from Eating Liberally. Makes some interesting points about how food marketing prepares us for pharma marketing.

Dan Barber on Food–Meet Adam Smith, from the Faceless Bureaucrat, who throws some amusing cold water on a professional chef’s rose-tinted view of small farms.

Dog meat on the menu in Korea (illegally), from Food Law Prof Blog. Because dog meat has been linked to salmonella and staph infections, there are now calls to classify dogs as livestock in order to bring dog meat under food safety regulations. Our comment: You probably shouldn’t invest in Korea’s pet product market.

Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn’t Buy a Lot of Groceries, from the Washington Post. Only four members of Congress take on “Food Stamp Challenge” issued by the House Hunger Caucus. Is that close to the number of congressman with actual military experience?

What Do You Do When Your Child Lies? From Scribbit. Good suggestions and discussion on an issue all parents face sooner or later. We would add: Begin creating a trust state of mind. Take you and your friends to the mall this weekend? Sure. See that PG-13 movie that might be too racy? Sure. Because we trust you and your common sense. But one hairline crack in that trust…

From Izzy Mom, Best. Newspaper. Clipping. Ever.

Guest post by Ann Bagel Storck. Reprint of her article in the Daily News section of Meatingplace.com

Ninety percent of consumers agree with the statement, “I trust the meat, poultry and fish my grocery store sells is safe,” according to the Food Marketing Institute’s U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2008 report, released last week.

They express less trust in the government: 79 percent agree with the statement, “I trust the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that the food I purchase is safe.” Only 76 percent hold this view about the FDA, the survey says.

The report also covers consumers’ financial pressures and nutritional concerns. Economic worries are compelling Americans to cook at home more and eat less often at restaurants (71 percent). Consumers also are buying fewer luxury foods (67 percent) and more store-brand items (60 percent) and eating more leftovers (58 percent).

Meanwhile, 41 percent of shoppers say they are “very concerned” about the nutritional content of the foods they eat. When evaluating whether a food is nutritious, shoppers focus most on the fat content listed on the Nutrition Facts label, with more than half checking saturated fat, trans fat and total fat. More than four in 10 check the calorie count, look for whole grains and focus on the salt, sugar and cholesterol levels, FMI says.

Feedstuffs Foodlink (one of my best sources for information for this blog) has sponsored a brochure which clearly defines many of the common food label terms for meat and poultry.

It is important to keep in mind that all food must meet specific quality and safety regulations set in place by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, with meat and poultry products tested by the USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service.

Labels do not reflect differences in quality or safety-they only describe the way in which a meat or poultry product was raised or processed.

The following clarify some of the most common label terms used for meat and poultry products: More can be found on the complete brochure.

Certified
The term “certified” implies that FSIS and the USDA Agriculture Marketing Service have officially evaluated a meat product for class, grade or other quality characteristics. If used under other circumstances, the term must be closely associated with the name of the organization responsible for the “certification” process (for example, “XYZ Company’s Certified Beef”).

Organic
Products must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any remaining ingredients must consist of approved nonagricultural substances or inorganically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form. Organic meat and poultry products mean the animals were reared without regular use of antibiotics and without growth hormones (growth-promoting hormones are not allowed in raising hogs or poultry).

100 Percent Organic
Products must contain only organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Organic meat and poultry products mean the animals were reared without regular use of antibiotics and without growth hormones (growth-promoting hormones are not allowed in raising hogs or poultry).

Made with Organic Ingredients
These processed products must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients and may list up to three organic ingredients or food groups on the label.

Chemical Free
This term is not allowed to be used on labels.

Free-Range or Free-roaming
Producers must demonstrate that the poultry has been allowed access to the outdoors. This does not mean that the animals were raised outside.

Natural
A product may be labeled “natural if it contains no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. this label designation does not indicate how the animal was raised.

No Hormones
Hormones are not allowed in raising hogs or poultry. Therefore, the claim “no hormones added”cannot beused on labels of pork or poultry unless it is followed by the statement “Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormone”. In beef, the term “no hormones administered” may be used if the producer documents that no hormones were used in raising the animals.

There was a very uplifting article in the New York Times this week on inner city gardens. (discovered via Chow). I find these kind of projects inspiring for so many reasons; making fresh produce available, beautification of formerly derelict spots, providing work opportunities for youth and the homeless. Not least of all, is reconnecting people with food at its roots.

I think one of the biggest wasted opportunities of the Bush administration’s tenure was Hurricane Katrina. Wouldn’t it have been a great chance to reconstruct the most devastated areas with community or rooftop gardens? My favorite chapter in “Good News For a Change” (by David Suzuki and Holly Dressel) is the one about Cuba’s move toward more urban food production, forced by their isolation from global food sources.

I spent an afternoon with Dan Rather last year during an on-site interview on cloned animals in the food supply. The best part of the afternoon was talking with him about his views on people’s disconnects with agriculture and the source of their food. He said he thought it would be great to have a series of “Ag Disneylands” where people could come and see plant and animal agriculture as it really is. Perhaps that would help bridge the chasm of understanding between producers and consumers.

We’re starting a new feature this week: a digest of links I and my partners-in-blogging-crime have come across recently. Many of which we’d love to have featured full-length analyses, but the rest of life intervened. Some are great resources and some are merely interesting.

Clash over CO2 and food miles. Is African agriculture more eco-friendly?

New Food Safety Rules May Do More Harm Than Good . The food safety regulations established in response to the spinach E. coli outbreak are threatening environmentally friendly farming practices.

The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can’t afford.

Organic Myths Rebutted.

More Choice for Women Means More Sustainability. Expanding the capacity of all women to choose when to bear children is thus the surest route to achieving an environmentally sustainable population.

Eating Fresh and Seasonal. Seasonal guides to help you navigate the world of produce from the supermarket to your kitchen

And one that we will be posting more on soon, Pew Commission Says Industrial Scale Farm Animal Production Poses “Unacceptable” Risks to Public Health, Environment

As long as we’re orbiting near the “Mommy Blog” sphere… Rather than sending flowers, chocolate or wine to Mom this year (she’s got 6 other kids who will probably supply her well), I decided to make a donation to the Austin Children’s Shelter in her honor.

“Mom: I wanted to do something meaningful for Mother’s Day, something that would last, just as the love, nurturing, support and caring you gave me have made a lasting difference in my life and the life of my kids. Thanks for being you and for being my Mom! “

I’ve seen what the loss of self-esteem resulting from domestic violence can do to kids (and their Moms). I’m urging each of you to honor or remember a special Mom in your life with a gift to this or your favorite cause.

When we think of fresh-from-the-garden vegetables, the image we get is the picture of health. Barfblog reminds us that whether it is a 10 x 10 backyard garden or a 1,000 acre commercial enterprise, food safety is still important. Thanks to them for pointing us to the UC Davis Home Garden Food Safety publication list.

Some safety tips for your home garden:

• Prevention of contamination is much more effective than washing or cleaning up the produce after it is contaminated.
• Gray water use for edible plants should be carefully monitored, to make sure it is not a possible source of microbial contamination. Foliar (leaf) watering should be by municipal water, or other pathogen-free source.
• Properly composted animal manures or green manures (plant-based) are safe. If using fresh manure, mix it into the soil and maximize the time between application and planting.
• There is a food safety risk to allowing chickens in the garden during harvest season.
• Avoid keeping piles of composting plant matter or rotting vegetation close to the garden; they can harbor rats and mice which can be vectors of human disease pathogens.
• The recommended method for washing produce is with a brush under running water. They tested a range of commercial products and found they were generally not more effective than washing with water alone.

Happy growing and eating!

…Or is it?

This morning, there was a whole segment on the Today Show about mommy blogs, which cover all sorts of things, but primarily the personal experiences of being a spouse and parent. Some mommy blogs are so successful that they have become mini-publishing empires unto themselves. Hmmm, blogging, mommy, income…. Both Sara and I are two out of three; we’re not seeing the big bucks yet from Down to Earth, haha. But then, most women don’t start to blog out of a desire to make money. It’s usually about having a space to express oneself and maybe create a discussion about topics important to you. Here, the topic is good healthy food, which does stem from my desire to make sure my kids eat healthy and well. But, I probably will share some stories about my little boys and kvetch about my husband at some point. So I will be a “mommy blogger.” Does this make Down to Earth a Mommy blog, though?

New Scientist: Environment posted about a paper entitled “Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the US”. It’s also gotten coverage from National Geographic, Mother Jones and other sources. It has been quoted around the blogosphere as a mandate to reduce or eliminate red meat in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

Unfortunately, only a lay-person’s version of the paper is available online. The authors were kind enough to send me the original paper in all its science-geek glory.

The paper is very well written and fair. When the author doesn’t really have a dog in the fight, I’m much less suspect of the conclusions. In the original paper, the authors are very careful to point out that their results are, of necessity, based on industry averages for the source data. The inputs about red meat production, therefor, are based on industry standard production practices. For beef production, this means a calf is typically born and raised to weaning on one farm, sold to another producer for growing out on another pasture-based system or grain/forage mix, then finished on a high-grain diet in a concentrated facility. The total GHG footprint of red meat production under this scenario is high compared to other food types.

The “local” component of GHG emission come from the miles the food travels between final production and the point of sale. For red meat, this is a very small portion (9%) of the total GHG emissions. Much of the remaining GHG emissions are the result of transporting feed to the animal.

My argument with blanket conclusions such as “eating red meat is bad for the environment” is that locally produced red meat, or meat produced under production systems such as pasture-based, are not going to have the same impacts. I am attempting to gather unbiased data on relative impacts of tilled food (veggies and cereal grains) versus foods that are produced without tillage. I’ll post on them as I get them.

Eating red meat from a local producer that brings cattle in from all over the country and trucks in feed may not reduce your GHG as much as buying single-ranch, completely pasture-raised beef from across the country. Likewise, red meat from your local producer may be less GHG intense than eggs from a chain natural foods store.

My take-away message from the paper is that “local” is not a silver bullet for reducing your GHG footprint. Neither, however, is elimination of red meat, dairy or other food classes. Similarly, organic may not be less GHG-intense than non-organic (traditional or other alternative). As with many of the issues we discuss here, attention to what you are buying, common sense and an open mind will guide you to wiser choices than any hard-and-fast rule.

I’d like to share an e-mail I recently received from one of my (former) beef customers. By way of background, I co-founded the company in Austin that is one of the leaders in livestock cloning. I make my primary living now from raising registered cattle and selling pastured beef through local outlets, primarily Farmer’s Markets. I have been in partnership on cloning a couple of cows; I don’t own the clones, but do have future rights to some embryos produced by them.

Dear Sarah,

As my husband and I can understand your choice on cloned animals, we can not in good conscience choose to eat it as you choose not to tell your clientele unless they ask. We have therefore found a ranch that has no clones of any kind and does not believe in the marketing or selling of this type of animal. While we appreciate your honestly with us, with a heavy heart we ask to please be removed off your email list.

Dear _____

Thank you for your e-mail; I appreciate your sentiments and your integrity in being upfront with us. I applaud you and your husband in sticking by your convictions and will certainly remove you from our mailing list.

I would like to make clear, however, that we will not be selling beef from the offspring of clones through Wild Type Ranch Beef. I understand my clientele and respect that part of the reason we have such loyal clients is that they trust the us to produce beef in a way that they can know and understand.

I happen to personally believe in the technology, and in the data that the FDA used in reaching its decision. At this point in time, there is no chance that beef from a clone or the offspring of a clone will be sold as Wild Type Ranch Beef. If this does occur, it will be with full disclosure and complete transparency.

Best regards,
Sara

Why, if I believe in the technology and the safety of meat produced with it, am I stating that it isn’t being sold as our beef? There are a number of reasons, but the first being that even though I was one of the “early adopters”, there won’t even be a chance that we could harvest beef from the offspring of clones until mid-2010.

Here’s why: The cloned cows were born in fall of 2006. The first one will calve this fall, then she will be used as a “donor cow” to produce embryos that other cows will carry. Called “Embryo Transfer” or ET, this is a common practice in registered cattle production (over 10% of registered Angus cattle are produced by ET). The ET sons and daughters of the cloned cow will be born at the end of the year 2009. They will be of such high genetic worth, that they will be targeted as breeding stock. Still, we cull about 10% of our top animals, so there is a slim chance one of them could end up as beef. If it does, it would be ready to harvest sometime around mid-to-late 2010. More likely, the genetics from the cows I was involved in cloning won’t affect the beef supply until her sons are used as bulls and their calves get harvested as beef. Meaning, they will be grand-offspring of the cloned cow and will hit the market sometime around the middle of 2012.

And what will happen if/when I harvest beef that can trace part of it’s pedigree to a cloned cow or bull? I won’t feel any need sneak it into my beef supply, nor would I out of respect for the wishes of my customers. On the contrary, I expect I’ll advertise it widely, as I expect it will be some of the best we’ve ever produced.