There’s an interesting discussion going on at one of the leading feminist blogs. It’s about one woman’s frustrations surrounding food choices and feeding her family. In one single post, she touches on enough topics to fill this blog for the next six months: How do you feed your family healthy, tasty, economical and appealing meals that you can afford financially and time-wise? Add to that a desire to make your food choices reflect your values and other concerns such as the desire to eat local, support sustainability and ethical accountability, and it’s enough to make any Mom pull out their hair!

I share these frustrations about food choices. It seems like we have more information at our fingertips than we can process. Add to that the fact that much “information” is actually propaganda and it’s even harder to make intelligent food choices.

I get PO’d by label claims that are confusing, relatively meaningless and designed to take advantage of people’s concerns for their health and desire to be environmentally or socially responsible.

I get frustrated when I talk to my farmer’s market customers who think “eggs from vegetarian fed chickens” means the chickens led a life of total freedom(chickens aren’t vegetarians). I find it equally dismaying to hear people blaming beef or milk for early onset of puberty (studies show the leading causes have nothing to do with either).

Then there’s the whole local versus industrial and traditional versus organic thing. To paraphrase one particularly well-written comment:

In practice, there are some things it is nearly impossible for industrial agriculture to do particularly well. Others fare better. Localizing food production more solves some problems, introduces others; it’s not a panacea. Over all of this also hangs the spectre of energy policy; some of the most productive (at least in some sense) industrial techniques are deeply coupled to assumptions about cheap fossil fuel availability. … local’ is no more a magic word than so-called `organic’, but it has a place in the discussion of how to fix some of the more broken parts of our current agricultural system.

Much of what is in the press or on the web is so slanted toward converting the reader to a point of view, it’s hard to believe anything. And who has the time to do all the research?

My frustrations are exactly why I started blogging here. I find myself on a mission to sort through some of the crap, research and propaganda so other moms, consumers, producers and food industry folks can get a sens of understanding on some very confusing issues.

A post comparing airlines and food safety got me to thinking: In general, is large-scale-produced food more safe than smaller-scale production?

One factor that is often not considered when we evaluate small-scale production food safety is “assessment bias”. If Joe’s 2 bushels of homegrown tomatoes from the farmer’s market are tainted with Salmonella, it is likely to go undetected or reported. Even if people got sick and reported the illness it is unlikely his tomatoes would be identified as the source and even less likely it would make national headlines.

I don’t think we have good statistics on real safety measures of small versus large production. Yet, food safety, especially for meat, ranked above quality and price in a survey of local food purchasers in the upper midwest.

There are some things “small food” has going for it with regard to food safety:

• Accountability. All producers, large and small are accountable. Small producers are usually directly accountable to the consumer. We put our livelihoods on the line each time we sell an inferior or unsafe product.
• Known source (sometimes). I say sometimes here, because many farmer’s markets sell produce obtained at large terminal produce hubs. Here in Texas, that means that unless you know that your market vendor is growing their own, you may be buying jalapenos and tomatoes from the Rio Grande valley or Mexico (one of the sources for the recent salmonella outbreak).
• Direct relationship with consumer. Having to look my customers in the eye when they buy my beef or ask me questions about my production, quality and safety practices is more effective than a whole slew of federal regulations.

On the other hand, “big food” is often under more rigorous scrutiny and regulation to ensure food safety. Many types of food have mandatory testing not requred for small and local producers. Many of the regulations and production practices in use were put in place to ensure food safety. Small producers often do not have food safety training or food safety plans.

So, don’t presume that local = safe. Ask questions of your local producer about productions practices, food safety, etc. Ask about sources for produce, handling and refrigeration practices for meat and eggs. When purchasing from a small producer it is up to you to be your own “food safety authority”.

We are pleased to present this guest post from Terry Etherton, who normally blogs here.

In the first peer-reviewed study of its kind, a paper*** published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of an in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST).

The study looked specifically at three label claims related to dairy-cow management: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk. The recent trend in misleading food labeling based on agricultural management prompted the study.

While minor differences were observed for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The authors of the study (including me) concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

The study will help food and nutritional professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about confusing and deceptive milk-label claims that are designed to differentiate rbST-free and organic milk from conventional milk. The objective of these marketing campaigns it to have consumers pay a whole lot for rbST-free or organic milk when, in fact, they are compositionally the same as conventional milk.

***Vicini, J, T.D. Etherton, P. Kris-Etherton, J. Ballam, S. Denham, R. Staub, D. Goldstein, R. Cady, M. McGrath and M. Lucy. 2008. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 108:1198-1203.

WARNING: Take the headline with a grain of salt.

I came across a blog post claiming organic milk is worse than regular milk, and is in fact dangerous. The blog editor has posted liberally elsewhere about dioxins in organic milk: As background to the quote below, the author states that 80% of organic milk worldwide is Ultra-High Temperature processed.

You get far more dioxins with UHT milk than you do with regular pasteurized milk because more dioxins gets digested instead of being flushed out of the body. This occurs because the micronized fat globules in UHT milk are much smaller. As a result, significantly more dioxins from organic UHT milk get into the bloodstream.

This “news” even made it into the mainstream ag news service to which I subscribe.

BUT-being the skeptic I am, I followed up… The bottom line is that I don’t trust the author. His posts claim milk is responsible for acne, death, global warming and is the biggest cause of illness in the world. He is selling a book called “Organic Milk Myth”, among several other books, all of which seem to be aimed at eliminating milk consumption altogether (to be substituted by the “milks” he’ll gladly sell you the recipes to make). Anyone with that clear an agenda is not going to weigh the often conflicting scientific data. In my book, if you don’t consider the validity of the other side’s viewpoint, your arguments don’t hold much water.

There are some valid points in his posts, however. The main thing of value I see in his writing is a point that I have made here many times. Often people buy organic thinking they are getting something they are not. Most organic milk is produced in very similar ways to regular milk. Many organic milk products are UHT pasteurized where their regular counterparts may not be.

There was a good study published recently in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) on nutrient and hormone composition of conventional, rbST-free and organic milk.    More on that soon.

The Troublemaker Mom: From Science Women. I’ve sooo been there, and it seems particularly hard for moms in the hard sciences where there’s not much room for the warm-and-fuzzies integral to parenthood.

The chocolate genome: Mars (the confection company, not the planet) is investing $10 million to help sequence the genome of the cacoa tree (from which we get cocoa). The project is in conjunction with the USDA.

Food and Environmental Justice named as a Church issue: In support of core prinicples regarding the environment and human rights, the Unitarian Universalists (of which Thomas Jefferson and Susan B. Anthony were members), have name Ethical Eating as a primary issue of study and action for the next four years.

Ranch Wife Guide 101: From Chewing the Cud. Funny tips on how to maintain your ranch AND your marriage. Hmmm… but maybe my husband would say I’m the “he” referred to in this post?

Number of women farmers growing: Some insights about women farmers and ranchers in the West, for Suzanne, who asked about it in this post about women farmers in the Northeast.

I was jazzed to see profiles and a photo spread of women farmers in last Sunday’s NY Times Sunday Magazine. According to the piece, even though the number of farms has decreased, there are 80 percent more women farmers today than there were 20 years ago in the United States. In the Northeast alone, women run some 20,000 farms.

And the point of the article (which, BTW, appears in “The Way We Eat” section)? That women “are forging new bonds between field and table, strengthening the connection between things we love to eat and the stewardship that makes them possible.”

How true. Down to Earth blog is part of this.

I must admit, though, that I experienced a moment of indignation when I saw that the piece focused exclusively on farms, and only those in the Northeast. What about the rest of the country? WHAT ABOUT RANCHERS? Sara soooo should have been included! Perhaps she can help fill in some of the holes in the article. Sara, has there been a surge in women ranchers “forging new bonds between [our great plains] and table”?

I love it when I find something that makes my job easier!

There is a new site that addresses many of the issues, myths and misconceptions about animal agriculture. Here’s a sample:

MYTH	Farming in the U.S. is controlled by large corporations, which care about profits and not about animal welfare.
FACT	There are 2.1 million farms in the U.S., and according to a May 2006 report on the structure and finances of U.S. Farms, exactly the same numbers counted by the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The 2006 report found that the vast majority of America?s farms (98%) are family-farms. The study also discovered that 61% of all farms did not participate in any farm program in 2003. This finding clearly indicates that only a minority of farmers receive agricultural subsidies. For more information on the report, click here.

I’ve added the Animal Agriculture Alliance to our blog roll for future reference

There is a post on What to Eat discussing a suite of lawsuits between a meat packing company and a church regarding responsibility for sickening people who ate meatballs at a church fundraiser.

I raise beef to sell at local farmer’s markets. Concern about food safety is one of the reasons my customers buy my beef. Even though my beef is 100% pasture-raised, any beef can still contain e-coli (and even the 0157 strain), because it is present in most environments to some degree. Is my beef safer? Maybe.

There are several reasons we have more ground beef recalls now than in the “good old days” that have nothing to do with whether the animal is grain or grass-fed;

1) we have better surveillance and identification systems. Tainted beef is sometimes identified by random testing and illnesses can be definitively determined to be caused by specific strains associated with ground beef.

2) beef is often ground before it hits the grocery store, giving the organisms time to spread through the product. In the “old days” when grocery stores employed butchers, ground beef was often or usually ground at the store, giving less time for the organisms on the surface of relatively large cuts of beef to be mixed throughout the product.

3) the grind is a mix of several or many animals, sometimes from different processing batches or sources. This increases the chance that one animal carried a pathogen. [theoretically, this would result in diluting the contaminant as well, but the bugs can multiply pretty quickly].

So what’s the bottom line for local beef?

On the plus side for food safety; Local ground beef usually comes from a single animal and is typically ground and frozen within 24 hours of when the beef is processed into individual cuts. It also usually stays frozen until it is purchased. In most localities, beef for resale must be processed under the supervision of a state-licensed inspector, similar to inspectors at larger plants. There is also direct (or at least more direct) accountability between the producer and the customer.

BUT, local producers/vendors are not required to (and usually don’t) have an approved or professional food safety plan. Locally processed beef does not undergo random testing for contamination. Food safety regulations for storing and selling beef vary greatly by location–from the ridiculously restrictive to absent. In our own case, we are concerned enough to monitor our freezers daily and to sell from freezers rather than coolers. We also eat beef from each animal before we sell it.

Nevertheless, there are no guarantees. You can provide the best insurance on ground beef safety. Cooking to 160 degrees, being aware of (and not consuming) beef that smells off or is past the “use by” date, keeping meat preparation areas and utensils separate from other utensils and areas (especially serving) and proper hand-washing before and after handling raw meat are your best assurances of safe ground beef. The American Meat Institute has a handy site for safe handling of all types of meat.

I believe that our meat supply is currently safer than it was 40 or 50 years ago, whether you buy your meat locally produced or at the grocery store.

As the designated science geek here, I was happy to see an report that a majority of voters of both parties list science as an important issue. Although democrats feel more strongly about it that do republicans, voters across the board support research into science and technology, with emphasis on the three E’s: education, environment, and energy.

Sadly, at least with the candidates, agriculture (one of my other favorite subjects) does not appear to hold nearly as strong a position, according to some ag publications. Given the state of the FDA, rising food costs and biofuels, perhaps it should.

There was a recent NYTimes article about how our brains can lead us to remember false statements as being true, if they are heard often enough. In addition, (as I posted earlier) we are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs we already hold. We tend to remember news that accords with our views, and discount statements that contradict it.

Recently, I was disturbed to receive a fwd:fwd:fwd’ed e-mail from a man whose integrity and values I generally respect. In it, we are warned against electing a “Black, male, Muslim extremist between the ages of 17 and 40″; listing that as the profile of a terrorist. Although they named the candidate for whom we would be “stupid” to vote, he is a Christian and he’s 3 years older than me, (and although I’d love to be in that age bracket, I can’t pull it off).

Two of our basic freedoms are freedom of choice and of speech. I enjoy political debate and believe the internet to be a wonderful tool through which we can all have a voice. We’ve certainly got enough pressing national and international issues on which to base our vote. I hate to see fear, hatred, bigotry and falsehoods be used in a country that is supposed to be fighting against such things.

Outside the political arena, the NYT piece hits home with me as the editor of this blog, too. This blog is based on being non-propagandal. Our aim is to sift through the misconceptions, rhetoric and sometimes outright falsehoods regarding food safety, production, agriculture and technology. Some of what is “common knowledge” is not accurate, some of what is written is slanted to prove a point, some is written to attract attention by being sensational. As the NYT says:

“In a replication of the study … researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.

In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.“

I again challenge you on this 4th of July (and through the year), to be aware of your information filter, challenge your biases and take a look at the other side, especially when your reactions are strongest. Truth will stand up to the light of investigation.