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?

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

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.

Here’s a link to two articles from today’s Baltimore Sun that provide a nice summary of food label terms part 1 and part 2 . Labels and what they mean continue to be one of the most confusing issues to consumers who are conscious of what they are buying and eating. Wary consumers often read more into a label term than is defined by the rules regulating its use.

So much of the uproar following the FDA’s announcement is over the possibility of eating cloned meat, or more correctly, meat from cloned animals. The USDA today issued a request that producers continue to withhold their cloned animals (but not offspring) from the food supply in order to buy time for ‘an acceptance process’ consumers in the United States and abroad will need, “given the emotional nature of this issue.”

In reality, it is the genetics, not the meat that will reach the consumer. Clones themselves will be used for breeding, so the impact on the food chain will be essentially the same as other breeding technologies, such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer. I have read the FDA’s report . The genetics of the cloned animals remain unchanged so there is no reason to expect, nor evidence to support that offspring of cloned animals are in any way different than offspring of the original animal. Read the rest of this entry »