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.

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.

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”?

10 Tips for Homemade Ice Cream Success: From Serious Eats. What would the 4th of July be without icecream? And I staunchly maintain that if you make it yourself, you can consider it a “local food”!

The Small Screen With a Big Impact: from Blogher. Some scary statistics. The average child in the US sees 15,000 commercials annually that promote candy, highly sweetened and processed food and fast food. One more reason to get the kids off their duff and out into the garden!

Best and Safest Sunscreens: Just in time for the long weekend, Environmental Working Group has released a comprehensive review of sunscreens based on UVA and UVB protection, as well as presence or absence of harmful chemicals.

Cow Fat Motor Oil: from EcoGeek. Another cool green-geek find from one of my favorite sites. This motor oil is made from animal fat, biodegrades sufficiently that it can be safely poured on the ground and is non-toxic!

Common livestock production practices coming under fire. from Advocates for Agriculture. Procedures such as castration are coming under fire as being “mutilations”. Being a big proponent of preventing unwanted pregnancies (in any species), this seems like a slippery slope to me.

WIC-ensuring buying power through prohibiting organic: From US Food Policy. There’s no arguing that organic foods are generally higher priced. The Michigan WIC program has placed limits on foods in an effort to increase the nutritive buying power of food stamps. Along with many convenience items, organics are specifically prohibited on many foods.

Nourishing Frugal Food: found via the Nourished Kitchen . The Nourishing Gourmet is having a frugal food festival. July 11th is main dishes and July 18th is sides and salads. Hmm, I’ll have to post a recipe from here to contribute. With two growing boys, I sure know about stretching the grocery dollar!

A recent research study of conventional and outdoor antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics) production systems showed pigs raised outdoors without the use of routine antibiotics carried more bacteria and parasites, according to Feedstuffs newspaper. The research sampled pigs from three states (WI, NC, OH) and compared “niche-market, outdoor and antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics)” to “intensive indoor (conventional)” rearing systems.

Blood tests showed the outdoor pigs had significantly more exposure to Salmonella and Toxoplasma. Two pigs from different outdoor farms had antibodies to Trichinella. Trichinella is the parasite that infests muscles, and is the primary reason we have all been conditioned to cook pork thoroughly. The parasite has been virtually eliminated from conventional rearing systems.

I admit to being a little surprised by the research. In keeping with my science-geek image, I tracked down the authors, who very kindly sent me a copy of the original research paper. The research seems solid, and the stats are supported by other research in this country and in Europe.

So why the higher infection rate in outdoor pigs? The reasons given by the authors include exposure to wild and domestic animals (i.e. cats can carry trichinella), and access to soil and moisture which are viable environments for pathogens.

The skeptic in me can’t help wondering exactly what the outdoor systems studied were? Were they just raised in outdoor pens, or were they “pasture-raised” where they were foraging for a significant part of their diet? It is common in the chicken industry, where “free-range, vegetarian-fed” chicken and eggs abound, for such chickens to have access to the outdoors, but be no more pasture-raised than if they were confined indoors.

It is important to remember that many production practices that come under fire, such as indoor rearing and antibiotics, were put into place to increase food safety and/or animal welfare in response to increasingly intensive animal production. Merely removing these practices without addressing the reasons they were implemented in the first place does not necessarily bring about the benefits to humans or animals envisioned by consumers who purchase based on a “free-range” label.

Since April, there have been 613 people identified as infected with Salmonella St. Paul in this country. For the most part, consumers have embraced the warnings and precautions put out by the FDA. (btw, Barfblog has an excellent collection of posts on this subject, including suggestions for ensuring safety of farmer’s market tomatoes).

From 1998-2005 there were 831 illnesses reported from unpasturized (raw) milk and cheese. Considering the number of people eating tomatoes vs. consuming raw milk, the per-consumer illness rate has got to be much higher for milk. Yet, government intervention in raw milk sales is not met with nearly the same attitude as seen in the case of tomatoes. Why?

For one thing, milk is probably the most emotion-charged food there is. It is so closely associated with children and wholesomeness that is it literally a “sacred cow” when it comes to safety, adulteration, regulation, hormones, antibiotics…. I’ve seen more conflicting statistics quoted about raw milk than almost any other food topic I’ve researched. (What’s that saying about lies, damned lies and statistics?). It’s hard to find a balanced piece of reporting on this topic, but there was one in the Seattle PI recently.

Raw milk advocates abound, and have some valid, or at least interesting points. For one thing, it DOES taste better (IMHO). There are claims of it being less of an allergen, easier to digest, and more healthful in a number of ways. There are a number of sites promoting raw milk. Sadly, most of them seem so fanatical, that I find it hard have faith in their statements and facts. If any of you know of good, sound, science-based raw milk sites or references, please let me know!

So, I’m not going to give you a pat yes or no answer on raw milk. If you choose to go raw, I will advise you to at least be sure of the following:

• purchase from a state-certified dairy (this is one reason I hate to see states outlaw raw milk-it turns it into an unregulated black-market item)
• be absolutely certain the milk is chilled immediately (this is not just stuck in the refrigerator, it is chilled in the equivalent of a circulating ice bath)
• drink your raw milk before it is a week old (the sooner the better). This means a week from when it was milked, NOT purchased!
• Be sure your dairy is testing routinely for coliform and other bacterial contaminants
• visit the dairy, if possible, before you trust their product. i.e. know your producer

I grew up on the raw milk produced by my family’s traditional dairy farm. We drank the milk from our bulk milk tank; it was not pasteurized until it got to the processing plant. BUT, I’m not even tempted to buy raw milk now. The primary reason is that without pasteurization, I am completely reliant on the producer to ensure that my milk is safe. In addition, the raw milk I grew up on was consumed within 24-48 hours of milking. I find it extremely difficult to trust raw milk from a dairy shelf in the health food store. I do know some local, certified raw milk dairies from which I would be comfortable purchasing. They all have waiting lists for customers.

A Labor of Love: From What’s Fresh. I couldn’t express better myself the philosophy and motivation behind growing and selling local food. Be sure to check out the double chocolate zucchini cake recipe, too.

Jumping on the Healthy Food Bandwagon: from Marketing Profs Daily Fix. Food companies (i.e. Kraft, General Mills, Sara Lee) are answering consumer demands for “Less” everything and the perception of healthier product. Along with this is usually a higher price tag. Is this a good thing?

Ecogeek’s Guide to Saying Thanks to Dad: A green giving guide for Father’s Day. This entry begs the question: Can one buy one’s way to environmental responsibility?

Cloned Meat: A logical next step: From Word of Mouth. An unusually non-emotional discourse on the place of cloning in our selective breeding practices. Here is someone who gets that this is more of a non-issue than one worth “media hand-wringing and deep moral debate about Frankenstein Friesians”.

Food Safety During an Emergency: From Momify. Loss of power during an emergency can endanger the food in your refrigerator or freezer. The USDA has published a Guide that includes tips on what to do in floods, power outages and removing odors from freezers and refrigerators. I wish I had seen that last bit last Thanksgiving, when I forgot to turn my frig back on after cleaning it out and then left for a week out at the ranch!

Safe vs. Organic Personal Care Products:  from BlogHer’s Green and Ecoconscious section.  We touched on this in last week’s Earthlinks.  The author (who also blogs on greenLAgirl) points out there is safety and eco-friendly on both sides of the organic fence in this excellent review.

Celebrating Extinction: From Ethicurean. This is a spoof on bluefin tuna extinction so well written that I took it seriously. After my recent mistaking of the “Obesity Causes Global Warming” for a spoof, I’m convinced that it is hard to tell in today’s world what is outrageous and real and what is outrageous and fictional.

I recently read a news article called “Mom’s Diet Can Boost Baby’s Brain,” about how a mother’s diet affects her baby while in the womb. It quoted Dr. Alan Greene, who encourages organic foods for babies and young children.

In addition to consuming the appropriate amount of nutrients, Greene believes that there are certain organic foods that babies and young children should consume.

This includes milk, soy, baby cereal, fruits and vegetables, and baby food meat.

‘If I were going to pick only one time of life to eat organic, it would be from conception through age three,’ he writes. ‘Our bodies and our brains grow faster during this period than at any later time.’

I recently posted about organic formulas for babies and wondered if “organic” is truly better the better choice. Many say yes; Consumer Reports agrees with Greene’s statements, saying in a 2006 article,

Children may be at risk of higher exposure to the toxins found in nonorganic food because baby food is often made up of condensed fruits or vegetables, potentially concentrating pesticide residues. While at least one company says their nonorganic baby food has pesticide and heavy-metal levels below government-recommended levels, that may be cold comfort for parents wanting the healthiest options for their baby.

But the Mayo Clinic disagrees, kind of:

Organic baby food can limit your baby’s exposure to pesticides and other potential contaminants in foods. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says organic foods are no safer or more nutritious than other foods. Also, organic baby food can be considerably more expensive than traditional baby food.

I suspect there is no “right” answer; it depends on what a mother feels comfortable giving to her baby and spending her money on. But the more knowledge she has about what she and her baby are eating (organic or non), the better.

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.