Make This Year's Farm Bill Count - Support Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act 2013

The Farm Bill. You know, that large (about $300 billion large) legislative package that rolls around every 5 years or so, intended to shape the future of our food system by setting standards for food production, food cost, nutrition, environmental health and rural development? Oh yeah, that one.

Five years have passed since 2008 when the last Farm Bill was implemented and while it was largely geared towards supporting industrial agriculture, progress was made to add new provisions that supported local and regional food systems in the United States. But like every Farm Bill, this one came with an expiration date of September 30th, 2012 and when Congress failed to agree on a new Farm Bill before that date (no surprise here) the bill was extended, returning the bill to it's permanent legislation and erasing those new provisions supporting healthy food and farms. Battle lost.

That is why supporting the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act is so important. It is a proposal to improve the upcoming 2013 Farm Bill and implement legislation that will allow for greater sustainable production of fruits, vegetables, and meats, expand access to healthy foods to consumers, and further improve the infrastructure and markets of regional and local food systems.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is one of the many organizations that is supporting this Act and is providing ways for you to take action as well. You can click here to show your support and tell Congress to cosponsor the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013!

Best,

Katie

You Can Take Control of the Food System Right Now

Food corporations aren't in business to help us eat healthier - they're in business to make money, since they are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. So when big food reassures us that they care about what's in our best interests - namely reducing lifestyle diseases like obesity and diabetes that stem from over-consumption of their products - that's really only a partial truth. It's a truth only in the sense that they care about how our interests will affect whether or not we purchase their products.  The idea that big food has any moral obligation to care about whether or not we get sick from their products is false, regardless of how their advertising might spin it. (Remember this ad by coke?  That's what I'm talking about.) And even that supposed "truth" that we as consumers are powerful enough to sway product development with our concerns could be considered a stretch.  Really, psychology is king in this industry, trumping public opinion and moral outrage, and the only thing we can do about it is to eat critically and move toward greater government regulation.

I was recently sent this article by a colleague that explains what I mean.  The article is long, but I'm glad I read the whole thing because it really gets into the nuts and bolts of how the food industry operates.  The fact that big food tries to create and optimize products for maximum addictiveness isn't all that surprising, but it does speak to the need for each of us as individuals to take control of our own health by making informed food choices, and to push for greater government oversight in order to regulate the production and marketing of these products.  Again, the industry isn't interested in pleasing the consumer; it's interested in pleasing its shareholders by selling product.  If the best way to sell product is to placate consumers with hollow reassurances while at the same time marketing them highly addictive and nutritionally poor goods, so be it.  There is no ethical compass here. In this system, the vast complexity of a human being is reduced to a set of psychological impulses.  If a company can capitalize on those impulses to make more money, all the better for them, but not necessarily all the better for you.

The point is, it's not about big food being good or evil.  Morally corrupt or not, they're looking after their best interests, and so should you.  It's easy to slip into eating unhealthy foods because we perceive them to be cheaper, tastier, and more convenient than their healthful wholesome cousins (I've fallen into that trap more than I'd like to admit) but when you're about to go for that prepared meal or snack because you think it's less expensive and less time consuming than making a real meal, consider whether or not that perception is really true, or if it's just the result of effective corporate marketing.  More and more I'm finding that I can make meals that are easily prepared and more delicious and satisfying than anything processed, despite what any food commercials tell me. There are thousands of variations on the sandwich, for instance, many of which are very quick and easy to make with local healthy ingredients, and are much cheaper and more delicious than fast food versions of the sandwich like burgers.  And if I really have no time for a full meal, or are just bored with the meal options I've been preparing for myself, I'll go the snack route, but not in the conventional chips and cookies way.  A combination of fruit, nuts, veggies, and cheeses makes a great on the go snack, and if you focus more heavily on the fruits and veggies it can be very affordable.

Regardless of your approach, buying locally produced food and preparing your meals yourself is a great way to feel empowered about your place in the food system.  On a larger scale, that empowerment means communities can work more effectively together to make lasting changes in government policy at all levels of the system, which translates into a better standard of living for everyone.  But it all starts with how we as individuals respond to the current food system, and who we choose to support with the one thing that big food cares about the most.  Money talks - how will you spend your opinion?

Have a great afternoon,
Melissa

Oceana Study Reveals Something Fishy About Seafood Labels Nationwide

As much as I would like to consider myself  a full fledged vegetarian, there are days where my occasional seafood cravings cannot be ignored. I will admit that from time to time, I've enjoyed a good salmon filet...or at least what I thought was a good salmon filet.

From 2010 to 2012 Oceana, an international organization focused on ocean conservation, conducted one of the most comprehensive studies investigating "seafood fraud" or the mislabeling of seafood products in the United States. The organization collected more than 1,200 samples from 674 retail outlets in 21 states. The study included DNA testing of all the samples finding that one third of the samples tested were mislabeled according to FDA guidelines.

Here are some more facts gathered from the study:

• 59% of fish labeled as "tuna" in restaurants and grocery stores in the U.S. is not actually tuna. 
• Snapper was mislabeled the most at 87% of the time and was in actuality any of six different fish species 
• Not surprisingly, sushi restaurants were more likely to mislabel their fish than grocery stores and restaurants 
• (Brace yourself for this one) 84% of fish labeled white tuna was actually escolar, a type of fish that  has caused those who eat more than six ounces to have "uncontrollable oily anal leakage". (Gross!)

Needless to say, I don't think I'll be giving in to my seafood cravings any longer.

-Katie

You can download the entire study in PDF form on Ocean's website or watch this video on YouTube.

Want to take action? Tell your representative to Support Safe Seafood.

American Consumption of High Fructose Corn Syrup Has Declined

       After Melissa's blog post the other day about Coca Cola, I thought it was only appropriate that I follow up with a post about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). High fructose corn syrup is the second ingredient in a Coca Cola  beverage (carbonated water is the first) and can be found in other sodas, juices, and many condiments. Although there is no  research that directly links this sweetener to health problems, too much sugar in any form can be extremely bad for your health, causing obesity, diabetes, and heart disease (find out more here).

But enough with the negativity - the news that I have to deliver about HFCS is positive (for the most part).

According to an article by Grist.com, an environmental news forum, Americans have been consuming less high fructose corn syrup and only 4.5 percent of corn produced in the United States this year it expected to be used for the sweetener.

        "Americans consumed an average of 131 calories of the corn sweetener each day in 2011, down 16 percent since 2007, according to the most recent USDA data. Meanwhile, consumption of sugar, also blamed for weight gain, rose 8.8 percent to 185 calories daily, the data show.

Even with the increase in sugar use, total U.S. sweetener production remains down 14 percent from a 1999 peak, according to the USDA.

“We’re seeing a real decline, and that people aren’t just switching to sugar,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington."

Despite the good news, we cannot ignore the "serious public health hangover" that Americans are faced with after decades of consuming sweeteners such as HFCS. This past week researchers in Philadelphia found a 70 percent increase in diabetes in kids under the age of 5 over a 20 year period. 

Regardless, it seem as if the ads similar to the one in Melissa's blog post aren't fooling everyone. In that case lets raise our glasses (of water of course) to our fellow Americans for making a positive change for their health! 

Katie 

Responses to the Stanford Study

Indiana Public Media/Flickr

I debated whether or not to write again about this topic since there has been so much press about it already, but as I continued to receive well written responses and the Executive Director started to get quoted on the subject, I decided that it was worth a followup, if for no other reason than because it will allow you to access important articles all in one place.  The first article in the following list - in which Bill Duesing is quoted extensively - sums up the organic community's reaction pretty well in its title.  It's annoying, and frustrating, when a narrow filter is applied to a holistic model of agriculture and then it's sensationalized in the press.  It's also annoying when the majority of the argument refutes a claim that most organic proponents never made in the first place.  But because those claims of organics' nutritional advantage were never the keystone of the organic model, the study and related negative press really isn't that intimidating.  Fortunately, media exposure is often a two way street, so there are a lot of well-rounded interpretations of the study out there.

Organic Reaction: Farmers Annoyed, Not Threatened By Stanford Study - Hartford Courant
The reaction among consumers seems muted or nonexistent, several organic farmers and advocates told me this week. They are perturbed but not alarmed. Perturbed because the Stanford report looked at health effects far too narrowly, and, anyway, missed the whole point of the organic movement — it’s not about better nutrition, it’s about a healthier planet and a sustainable food system.  More>

A Few Things to Remind People Quoting That Organic Food Study - GOOD.is
Whoa, slow down, internet and television news! Man, one document says organic food might not be worth the dollar and you'd think an organic vegetable had held up a bank.  More>

Organic Food vs. Conventional: What the Stanford Study Missed - Huffington Post
While the scientists analyzed vitamins and minerals, food isn't simply a delivery device for these things alone. We are quickly learning in this industrialized food era that our food can be full of a lot of other things. It has become a delivery device for artificial colors, additives, preservatives, added growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides and so much more.  More>

5 Ways the Stanford Study Sells Organics Short - Mother Jones
the study in some places makes a strong case for organic—though you'd barely know it from the language the authors use. And in places where it finds organic wanting, key information gets left out. More>

The Case for Organic Food - LA Times
So a new study from Stanford University shows that organic produce probably isn't any more nutritious than the conventional variety. We doubt the folks at Whole Foods are trembling in their Birkenstocks. We're not aware of too many people who thought otherwise — it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume the application of pesticides would have much impact on a fruit's vitamin content. But that doesn't mean it isn't safer to eat.  More>

The main point here is that there's a lot more to the organic model than whether or not it's more nutritious than the conventional model, and to really determine the specific health effects of eating organic versus conventional, we need more scientific study.  Study takes time, however, and in light of the other detrimental effects of large scale conventional farming, like pesticide and fertilizer overloads and mistreatment of workers, animals, and the environment, I personally choose to buy organic in the meantime.

Have a great weekend!
-Melissa

Safe Ways to Control Mosquitoes

A mosquito problem often feels overwhelming.  If you've had experiences like mine, you've sometimes felt very discouraged when products don't work well or at all, and have frequently been at a loss for any effective solution that's safe.  This weekend, the city of New York will be spraying a large portion of Manhattan in an effort to reduce the risk of West Nile virus and eastern equine encephalitis transmitted by mosquitoes, and the insecticide they're using is effective but dangerous.  It might sometimes feel like the only options available for controlling mosquitoes effectively are bad for the environment and bad for your health, but that's not the case.  It is possible to spare yourself from mosquito bites naturally, without sacrificing the health of your family, your pets, and the environment.  The next time you're planning on hosting an event outside, or when you just want to relax without having to spray yourself or your property with chemicals, try some of these natural alternatives for mosquito control:

• Use garlic juice, and products that contain it like Garlic Barrier® and Mosquito Barrier®  Apply garlic juice with a basic pump sprayer on all of the trees and bushes in the area and onto both sides of the leaves. Particular attention should be given to greenery around the perimeter of the property.
• Use a natural insect repellent on skin like neem oil. It's natural, non-toxic and goes a long way toward repelling not only mosquitoes but also other small, biting, flying insects. Neem has a strong odor, so testing it first is recommended.
• Add bacillus thuringiensis (BT) to the water in a pond, fountain or birdbath to kill larvae and aid in mosquito control.  Standing water is a breeding ground for mosquitoes, and can exist as a part of active streams or fountains, so stopping mosquitoes at the larval level is an important control method.

More tips for controlling mosquitoes naturally can be found here.  If you're not sure about the safety of a pest control substance, make sure it's OMRI approved before using it.

Have a bite-free end of the week!
-Melissa

Eat Healthy on a Tight Budget

Sometimes it might seem difficult to eat healthy foods on a budget.  It's hard to get past the notion that fruits and veggies aren't as filling for the cost, or that it is more time consuming or less tasty to eat healthy.  Why spend more to feel less satisfied, right?  Not so!  The truth is that filling up on healthy foods can be done cheaply, deliciously, and with a minimum of time and effort.  It just takes a little planning on the front end.  To help with that, the Environmental Working Group has compiled a comprehensive guide that helps shoppers make healthier food choices with less time and money.  Here is an excerpt from their methods page:

A single person relying entirely on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. must subsist on $6.67 per day. Members of a large family on SNAP receive about $5 a day per person (USDA 2012). The limited food that can be bought with these funds must be as nutritious as possible. Environmental Working Group’s “Good Food on a Tight Budget” project aims to help people with modest food budgets find the healthiest foods. This analysis is the first comprehensive food-ranking system that considers nutrition, affordability and common contaminants that arise from environmental pollution, processing and packaging.

The guide's food list categorizes the top inexpensive and healthy foods according to food group, then provides tips on how to get the most out of each dollar you spend, noting that some foods that aren't listed because of high pesticide use may also be available from organic sources at a low cost.  Make sure to scroll down for valuable resources related to each food group.  To save on time in the kitchen, the guide also provides a list of easy recipes that prove that "cooking at home is the best way to save money and enjoy good food."

Have a healthy and thrifty day!
-Melissa

Looking Back to Look Forward - Independence in America

Back in 1976, Robert Rodale wrote an editorial for the September issue of Organic Farming and Gardening about personal independence.  Almost 36 years later, the relationship between personal independence and sustainability is a major issue in current social and political movements, regardless of whether those movements are conservative or liberal, and related concerns about food, energy, and healthcare are some of the most hotly debated topics in the United States today. Case in point: the images in this post are not from the 70's; they're part of the current shift in mindset from reliance on outside groups to a more local and holistic approach to living, an approach Rodale discusses in his editorial:

The garden is the best place to start looking for ways to help people become more independent. A garden is both the symbol and reality of self-sufficiency—especially an organic garden, which recycles organic wastes of the yard and household, permits the production of significant amounts of food with only minimal reliance on outside resources. Any campaign to boost personal independence should start by helping people become gardeners—teaching, motivating, and making land available.

Liberty doesn't end at the border of the garden, though. Home production of a variety of goods and services extends the idea of gardening. Both gardeners and non-gardeners can also grow their own bean sprouts, make some of their own clothes, become proficient at crafts, improve insulation of their home, and do similar home production tasks. Each such activity you learn makes you less dependent on others.

Even treatment of disease could be improved by fostering a greater spirit of personal independence. We need to learn more about how to take care of ourselves during illness. Any doctor will tell you that an intelligent patient, who knows how to observe and evaluate symptoms, can be treated with fewer drugs, and is therefore less likely to have side effects and will probably recover faster. Being totally dependent on the doctor is the worst way to act when sick.

As of yesterday our nation is one year older.  As you take time to be with friends and family and celebrate our country's independence, take a moment to think about your own independence and what that means to you. Think about all the ways you can take charge of your life and live more independently, and save money be healthier and happier as a result. Whether your goal is to start your own garden, replace some of your driving with bicycling, or buy goods and services from people in your town, every step you take toward sustaining yourself is also a step toward making us more sustainable as a nation.  What better way to show your patriotism than by advocating for one of the most fundamental ideals of our country?

Happy Belated Independence Day!
-Melissa

A Recipe Finder with Built-In Price Estimator and Nutrition Facts

The SNAP-Ed Connection recently released a new resource that anyone can use to find healthy, affordable recipes, regardless of whether or not they are using the SNAP Program. The new Build a Cookbook feature added to the SNAP-Ed Connection Recipe Finder allows users to create a personalized cookbook from any of the nearly 600 low cost, healthy recipes in the Recipe Finder. You can also choose one of the fixed cookbook options that use pre-selected recipes from categories such as children’s favorites, older adults, or fruit and veggie recipes.

All recipes are nutritious and budget friendly, include cost and nutrition information, and are available in English and Spanish. Users can search for recipes by ingredient, recipe name, menu item and cost, as well as a variety of other search options including audience, cooking equipment required, and nutrition education topic. You can also rate each recipe and view ratings from others.

This is a great resource if you've ever found yourself wanting to cook something but are concerned about what the total cost will be.  If you are cooking for a larger group, cost can be especially important, so this is a good way to estimate your total cost ahead of time and budget accordingly.  This is also a good search engine if you want to see the nutrition facts of what you're cooking.  What a convenient way to keep track of what is in your food!

And if you want to save your recipes in a cookbook, you can enter a cookbook title, choose a cover design, and personalize it with your name and/or organization. Completed cookbooks will be available as a PDF file for viewing and printing. Get started building your new cookbook today at Recipe Finder!

New York City's Big-Soda Ban

By  now you have probably heard of Mayor Michael Bloomburgs plan to amend the New York City Health Code in order to establish 16 ounces as the maximum size for sugary drinks.  This would only be for containers served for immediate consumption like restaurants or theaters. The plan has drawn a great deal of criticism, and the CT NOFA staff weren’t sure how we felt about it. 

On one hand is the argument that adults can and should make their own decisions, especially about their own food consumption (as Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show).  Also, the ban does not actually stop anyone from drinking more than 16 oz of soda, they can just buy a second drink.  The main argument is that, consumers must learn about nutrition and how to make these healthy choices, instead of having someone legislate their behavior. 

On the other hand (which I'm starting to lean towards as I read more) is that portion sizes are huge in the United States, and these unlimited portion sizes are probably the greatest contributor to America's obesity epidemic.  The issue is not as much our food choices (every culture has some delicacies and foods that are unhealthy, but delicious).  Take for instance, this infographic from the Center for Disease Control:

Even people who are very careful about their consumption and aware of proper portion sizes, just don’t have the self-control to “save half their meal for later” or “share with a friend” - the recommended methods to beat big portions.  According to this column in the Huffington Post (and the infographic above), sodas are six times larger than they were 60 years ago, and Americans consume 200-300 calories more per day than 30 years ago. 

Whether the obesity epidemic is addressed with more aggressive education initiatives or legislation (preferably both), Bloomberg's impatience and desire to take immediate action is an attitude more politicians should have.  Political affiliation and personal health decisions have little to do with the truth that drinking large amounts of soda can cause weight gain, weight gain can lead to obesity, and obesity is a serious health condition.

This Report “Economic Causes and Consequences of Obesity”published in Annual Reviews in 2005 found that: “Much of the rise in energy intake is related to increased consumption of carbohydrates. In 1976–1980, adult men and women aged 20–74 years consumed daily 1039 and 700 kcal of carbohydrates, respectively. In 1999–2000, these numbers increased to 1283 and 969 kcal (10). Beverages, particularly fruit and soft drinks, are also responsible for a surprising number of calories. In 1997, the average American consumed 53 gallons of soft drinks and 17 gallons of fruit juices or drinks, a 51% and 40% increase since 1980 (55).”

A press release from Mayor Bloomberg’s office explains “Obesity is the only major public health crisis in America that is getting worse and nearly 60 percent of New York City residents are currently overweight or obese. In addition to the toll on health, the costs to the public are steep: in New York City $4 billion is spent annually on health care costs related to obesity. The Mayor’s Task Force on Obesity has proposed initiatives – including limiting the size of sugary drinks, significant contributors to the epidemic – with the goal of reducing the percent of obese adults by 10 percent and children by 15 percent over the next five years. “

The statistics for the United States as a whole are staggering. In 2007, diabetes cost the United States $174 billion in medical expenditures and reduced productivity and in 2008, obesity expenses totaled about $147 billion. By comparison, cancer (of all kinds) cost the United States $125.5 billion in 2010.

Also, as this debate plays out, keep in mind the American Beverage Association's political and economic power. As Nancy Huehnergarth points out in her column in Huffington Post, the ABA spent close to $13 million in New York in a six-month period in 2010, lobbying against a proposed penny-per-ounce statewide soda tax.  No one wants there to be large soda sizes available more than soda companies themselves.

Here's to healthy hydration!

Kristiane