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.

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.

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.