<![CDATA[Grist - Food]]> http://www.grist.org/kingdom/food Grist Kingdom Feed Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:58:14 -0800 en <![CDATA[The organic movement is a civic process, not a set of standards [corrected]]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=ef2fdcd04e59c6674e47c4a35d984718 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-08-organic-dairy-dispute-strauss-cornucopia/ Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:03:42 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-08-organic-dairy-dispute-strauss-cornucopia/ As the National Organic Standards Board considers new rules (PDF) on organic dairy, a dispute has erupted between watchdog group Cornucopia Institute and widely respected Strauss Family Creamery in Northern California over the access-to-pasture standard. (The Marin Independent Journal recently ran an informative account of the conflict.) E. Melanie Dupuis, author of Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink, brings an historical perspective to the conflict.

————————————————-

There’s a politics to everything—even a buch of cows munching grass.

Editor’s note: The original version of this post contained three factual errors. The Cornucopia Institute did not give Strauss Family Creamery and Aurora dairy the “same rating” with regard to sustainality practices, as the article stated. Cornucopia gave Strauss “three cows” of a possible five and Aurora zero. And California dairy farmer Tony Azevedo is not the “one organic dairy farmer” on Cornucopia’s board of directors. Azevedo serves on the group’s “Policy Advisory Staff,” not its board of directors. The board’s one dairy farmer is Ann Lazor of Vermont’s Butterworks Farm. I regret these errors, and have deleted them in the text below.—Tom Philpott

——-

Consumersinterested in understanding the current fight over what makes milk“organic” would do well to study the politics of the dairy industry acentury ago. 

In the 1930s, dairy farmers in the Northeast andMidwest spilled milk onto the streets to protest prices.  Theirpolitical rhetoric blamed shady milk dealers and heartless bureaucratsfor their plight but, as I describe in my book, Nature’s Perfect Food,there was another factor that increased the chaos of dairy pricing:pasture. 

There were two kinds of dairy system at the time:larger, more intensive, dairies closer to cities that fed grain and hayin confinement operations and sold milk to fluid milk markets yearround.  Then, there were the smaller, “hill farms” that tended topasture their cows.  Known as “summer dairies” these pasture-basedoperations tended to sell milk mostly in the summer months, often tolocal small cheese plants. 

Hill farm costs were low, and sowere the prices cheese plants paid for their milk, compared to higherpriced fluid market milk.  However, when times got tough, some of thispasture-produced cheaper milk would make its way into city fluid milkmarkets, thereby lowering the price paid to higher-cost confinementdairy farmers.  In 1937, Congress passed legislation that allowed forthe creation of milk market orders, boundary-setting rules that helpedseparate out confinement and pasture based operations and the pricesthey received. 

Eventually, pasture-based summer dairy systemsdied out in all but the most remote areas of the Midwest.  Makingcheese and other dairy products increasingly became the strategy dairycompanies used to manage the supplies they couldn’t sell as fluid milk. 

Therise in consumer demand for organic milk brought pasture-productionback into the game. Along with the re-appearance of pasture-dairyinghas come the tricky politics of pasture as well. After more than twoyears of wrangling, the USDA’s National Organic Program is about torelease its final Livestock Access to Pasture Rule.  What the finalrule will look like is uncertain, but the proposed rule, printed in theFederal Register in October of 2008, mandates that cows producingcertified organic milk have a specific percentage of pasture-grazedgrass as part of their diet.  Two years of negotiations have broughtmost actors into agreement as to minimum national pasturerequirements.  But two parties: Straus Family Creamery and AuroraDairies, continue to fight. 

 “A sustainable agroecosystemmaintains the resource base upon which it depends,” according toagroecologist Steve Gliessman, which means that a sustainableagricultural production system is specific to the particular bioregionin which it exists.  This is certainly true when it comes to pasture;the number of days of available green grass in any one place isdependent on soil, water, weather, hilliness, and a number of otherfactors that vary from one region to the next.  Yet the proposedorganic rule sets a national floor for the amount of pasture a cow musteat to be considered as producing organic milk.  There are sometemporary exceptions, but temporary flexibility is not the same asflexibility to allow for regional variation in pasture productionsystems.  

Albert Straus is one of the pioneers of organicdairying.  Straus Family Creamery, which milk a few hundred cows andbuys the milk of two other small local dairies, was the first certifiedorganic dairy company west of the Mississippi.  Straus’ local Bay Areafollowing is intense, and a number of his consumers submitted commentsto the USDA on the proposed rule defending Straus’ position.  Straus’issue with the rule is not pasturing per se, but the fact that hisdairy is located in the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, and regulated bythe California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and he must meetthe water and land use quality requirements of these entities as well. Cows on pasture during the California Coast’s often severe winterrainstorms can be tough on watersheds, and Straus’s operation existsonly because he works closely with local environmental officials. 

However,the most heavily-criticized actor in the pasture rule fight is AuroraDairy.  From its mega-dairy farms in Texas and Colorado, Aurorasupplies the milk for many large supermarket private organic milkbrands, such as Wal-Mart, Safeway and Costco. Grazing thousands of cowsis clearly a headache, and Aurora violated the organic dairy rules sobadly that even the Bush Administration’s lenient USDA sanctionedAurora in 2007 for violating the existing National Organic Programrules, including the current loophole-ridden pasture requirements. Private label supermarket brands seek to make organic milk moreaffordable, using Aurora as its low-cost supplier.  Aurora, for itspart, has pushed the definition of organic milk away from grass andtoward “pesticide-free” a criterion easier for larger organic dairiesto meet and still sell its milk at a lower price.  Aurora has thereforelobbied heavily against the proposed pasture rule.

Woes unitefoes and, in this case, agroecological and industrial arguments againsta national, one-size-fits-all rule on organic dairy seem to be sayingthe same thing: pasture is complicated and costly and pasture rulesshould be more flexible.  As a result, Straus and Aurora have foundthemselves lobbying together against the pasture rule, with Auroraclearly benefiting from Straus’ higher reputation.   

Enter theCornucopia Institute, a nonprofit that reports as its mission: “toempower farmers—partnered with consumers—in support of ecologicallyproduced local, organic and authentic food.”  Cornucopia Institute policy analyst Mark Kastel, lumped Straus andAurora together as “rogue farms.”  Tony Azevedo, a San Joaquin Valleyorganic dairy farmer who sells his milk to Organic Valley, alleged onthe Cornucopia site that Straus’s cows see a lot less pasture than isrequired under the rule.  

Albert Straus’ brother, Michael, anorganic public relations consultant, recently came to his brother’sdefense on his blog, calling him “one of the most ethical, honest,innovative and pioneering voices in the organic dairy and sustainableagriculture communities.”  Michael Straus refuted in particularCornucopia’s critique of the farm’s methane digester, a piece ofequipment which allows manure to be converted into energy whileavoiding both non-point source pollution into local water systems andthe release of ozone-depleting methane emissions.  Cornucopia haspresented the digester as one indication that Straus is not pasturinghis cows, since collecting manure to fuel the system is easier whencows are confined.  On the Straus Family Creamery website, AlbertStraus has defended his position, asking customers to imagine thechallenges he must meet to fulfill local land trust and Regional WaterQuality District agreements in the ecologically-sensitive and heavilyopen-space-regulated Marin Headlands.  Azevedo, who pastures his cowson irrigated alfalfa in the flat San Joaquin Valley, far fromecologically-sensitive and recreational-intensive spaces, can moreeasily fulfill the new requirements to be more pasture-friendly in hisoperation.  Both dairies serve the Bay Area milk market, yet the twodairy systems are substantially different, with very differentecological challenges and opportunities.

Organic dairy farmersmay make clean milk, but that common saying that organic means “gettingyour hands in the dirt” means something entirely different, here. Honestly, with the current surplus in organic milk supply, these dairyfarmers are fighting for their lives, and therefore should be forgivenfor fighting with each other.  But that doesn’t mean that they areplaying by the rules consumers expect of them: transparency as to theirproduction practices and their political interests.  Of course, thoseseeking to undermine the credibility of organic agriculture were boundto take notice, specifically old organic foes at The Hudson Institute,who pointed out that the director of the Cornucopia Institute was atone time a paid consultant to Organic Valley.  

Consumers, however, want to know whatthey are paying for when they pay often twice as much for organic milkthan conventional milk.  They want organic farmers to keep to a set ofstrict standards.  To the extent that some larger companies createproduction systems that mimic organic agriculture without truly meetingthe standards, consumers want those companies out from under theorganic label.  The extent to which organic consumers are specificallyinsisting on pasture-fed or simply pesticide-free production is an openquestion, part of the trickiness of organic milk politics.  Ironically,in the 1930s, it was pasture-based farmers who were under critique as“un-ecological,” running dairies on land “unsuitable for agriculture.” In Roosevelt’s time, that meant replacing these hill farms withforests.  Replacing cows with trees may have been good environmentalpolicy at the time, but it also was good for industrial dairying - iteliminated the threat of cheaper, pasture-based milk coming into themarket.  The pasture-elimination policies of the 30s were bad for smalldairy farmers.  Conversely, less flexible pasture access rules will doa lot to protect the smaller organic dairy farmers against the largeindustrial dairies.  However, this lack of flexibility willde-emphasize bioregional agroecologies. 

Consumers who wantorganic, grass-fed milk need to know that pasture is politicallytricky, in terms of ecology, locality, animals, farmer-to-farmer,farmer-to-consumer, and farmer-to-government relationships.  Ifconsumers really want to know “where their food comes from”—and ifthey want their milk produced through agroecological practices—theyneed to realize that ecology has a politics to it, and that organicfarmers might have different, and sometimes opposed, politicalinterests that may make promises of transparency difficult to meet. However, The Organic Movement will never just be about the creation ofstandards.  It is a civic conversation, with and between consumers,farmers, food businesses, and regulatory institutions.  Once we admitthat fact, sustainable farming systems will have a much better chanceof beating the credibility challenge of those who seek to underminethis alternative food system.  If organic dairy farmers want to survivethe current over-supply crisis, honest and trustworthy communicationwith consumers will be their best marketing tool.

Related Links:

New E.U. organic logo set for Europe’s supermarkets

Small is beautiful (and radical)

Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes



]]> As the National Organic Standards Board considers new rules (PDF) on organic dairy, a dispute has erupted between watchdog group Cornucopia Institute and widely respected Strauss Family Creamery in Northern California over the access-to-pasture standard. (The Marin Independent Journal recently ran an informative account of the conflict.) E. Melanie Dupuis, author of Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink, brings an historical perspective to the conflict.

————————————————-

There’s a politics to everything—even a buch of cows munching grass.

Editor’s note: The original version of this post contained three factual errors. The Cornucopia Institute did not give Strauss Family Creamery and Aurora dairy the “same rating” with regard to sustainality practices, as the article stated. Cornucopia gave Strauss “three cows” of a possible five and Aurora zero. And California dairy farmer Tony Azevedo is not the “one organic dairy farmer” on Cornucopia’s board of directors. Azevedo serves on the group’s “Policy Advisory Staff,” not its board of directors. The board’s one dairy farmer is Ann Lazor of Vermont’s Butterworks Farm. I regret these errors, and have deleted them in the text below.—Tom Philpott

——-

Consumersinterested in understanding the current fight over what makes milk“organic” would do well to study the politics of the dairy industry acentury ago. 

In the 1930s, dairy farmers in the Northeast andMidwest spilled milk onto the streets to protest prices.  Theirpolitical rhetoric blamed shady milk dealers and heartless bureaucratsfor their plight but, as I describe in my book, Nature’s Perfect Food,there was another factor that increased the chaos of dairy pricing:pasture. 

There were two kinds of dairy system at the time:larger, more intensive, dairies closer to cities that fed grain and hayin confinement operations and sold milk to fluid milk markets yearround.  Then, there were the smaller, “hill farms” that tended topasture their cows.  Known as “summer dairies” these pasture-basedoperations tended to sell milk mostly in the summer months, often tolocal small cheese plants. 

Hill farm costs were low, and sowere the prices cheese plants paid for their milk, compared to higherpriced fluid market milk.  However, when times got tough, some of thispasture-produced cheaper milk would make its way into city fluid milkmarkets, thereby lowering the price paid to higher-cost confinementdairy farmers.  In 1937, Congress passed legislation that allowed forthe creation of milk market orders, boundary-setting rules that helpedseparate out confinement and pasture based operations and the pricesthey received. 

Eventually, pasture-based summer dairy systemsdied out in all but the most remote areas of the Midwest.  Makingcheese and other dairy products increasingly became the strategy dairycompanies used to manage the supplies they couldn’t sell as fluid milk. 

Therise in consumer demand for organic milk brought pasture-productionback into the game. Along with the re-appearance of pasture-dairyinghas come the tricky politics of pasture as well. After more than twoyears of wrangling, the USDA’s National Organic Program is about torelease its final Livestock Access to Pasture Rule.  What the finalrule will look like is uncertain, but the proposed rule, printed in theFederal Register in October of 2008, mandates that cows producingcertified organic milk have a specific percentage of pasture-grazedgrass as part of their diet.  Two years of negotiations have broughtmost actors into agreement as to minimum national pasturerequirements.  But two parties: Straus Family Creamery and AuroraDairies, continue to fight. 

 “A sustainable agroecosystemmaintains the resource base upon which it depends,” according toagroecologist Steve Gliessman, which means that a sustainableagricultural production system is specific to the particular bioregionin which it exists.  This is certainly true when it comes to pasture;the number of days of available green grass in any one place isdependent on soil, water, weather, hilliness, and a number of otherfactors that vary from one region to the next.  Yet the proposedorganic rule sets a national floor for the amount of pasture a cow musteat to be considered as producing organic milk.  There are sometemporary exceptions, but temporary flexibility is not the same asflexibility to allow for regional variation in pasture productionsystems.  

Albert Straus is one of the pioneers of organicdairying.  Straus Family Creamery, which milk a few hundred cows andbuys the milk of two other small local dairies, was the first certifiedorganic dairy company west of the Mississippi.  Straus’ local Bay Areafollowing is intense, and a number of his consumers submitted commentsto the USDA on the proposed rule defending Straus’ position.  Straus’issue with the rule is not pasturing per se, but the fact that hisdairy is located in the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, and regulated bythe California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and he must meetthe water and land use quality requirements of these entities as well. Cows on pasture during the California Coast’s often severe winterrainstorms can be tough on watersheds, and Straus’s operation existsonly because he works closely with local environmental officials. 

However,the most heavily-criticized actor in the pasture rule fight is AuroraDairy.  From its mega-dairy farms in Texas and Colorado, Aurorasupplies the milk for many large supermarket private organic milkbrands, such as Wal-Mart, Safeway and Costco. Grazing thousands of cowsis clearly a headache, and Aurora violated the organic dairy rules sobadly that even the Bush Administration’s lenient USDA sanctionedAurora in 2007 for violating the existing National Organic Programrules, including the current loophole-ridden pasture requirements. Private label supermarket brands seek to make organic milk moreaffordable, using Aurora as its low-cost supplier.  Aurora, for itspart, has pushed the definition of organic milk away from grass andtoward “pesticide-free” a criterion easier for larger organic dairiesto meet and still sell its milk at a lower price.  Aurora has thereforelobbied heavily against the proposed pasture rule.

Woes unitefoes and, in this case, agroecological and industrial arguments againsta national, one-size-fits-all rule on organic dairy seem to be sayingthe same thing: pasture is complicated and costly and pasture rulesshould be more flexible.  As a result, Straus and Aurora have foundthemselves lobbying together against the pasture rule, with Auroraclearly benefiting from Straus’ higher reputation.   

Enter theCornucopia Institute, a nonprofit that reports as its mission: “toempower farmers—partnered with consumers—in support of ecologicallyproduced local, organic and authentic food.”  Cornucopia Institute policy analyst Mark Kastel, lumped Straus andAurora together as “rogue farms.”  Tony Azevedo, a San Joaquin Valleyorganic dairy farmer who sells his milk to Organic Valley, alleged onthe Cornucopia site that Straus’s cows see a lot less pasture than isrequired under the rule.  

Albert Straus’ brother, Michael, anorganic public relations consultant, recently came to his brother’sdefense on his blog, calling him “one of the most ethical, honest,innovative and pioneering voices in the organic dairy and sustainableagriculture communities.”  Michael Straus refuted in particularCornucopia’s critique of the farm’s methane digester, a piece ofequipment which allows manure to be converted into energy whileavoiding both non-point source pollution into local water systems andthe release of ozone-depleting methane emissions.  Cornucopia haspresented the digester as one indication that Straus is not pasturinghis cows, since collecting manure to fuel the system is easier whencows are confined.  On the Straus Family Creamery website, AlbertStraus has defended his position, asking customers to imagine thechallenges he must meet to fulfill local land trust and Regional WaterQuality District agreements in the ecologically-sensitive and heavilyopen-space-regulated Marin Headlands.  Azevedo, who pastures his cowson irrigated alfalfa in the flat San Joaquin Valley, far fromecologically-sensitive and recreational-intensive spaces, can moreeasily fulfill the new requirements to be more pasture-friendly in hisoperation.  Both dairies serve the Bay Area milk market, yet the twodairy systems are substantially different, with very differentecological challenges and opportunities.

Organic dairy farmersmay make clean milk, but that common saying that organic means “gettingyour hands in the dirt” means something entirely different, here. Honestly, with the current surplus in organic milk supply, these dairyfarmers are fighting for their lives, and therefore should be forgivenfor fighting with each other.  But that doesn’t mean that they areplaying by the rules consumers expect of them: transparency as to theirproduction practices and their political interests.  Of course, thoseseeking to undermine the credibility of organic agriculture were boundto take notice, specifically old organic foes at The Hudson Institute,who pointed out that the director of the Cornucopia Institute was atone time a paid consultant to Organic Valley.  

Consumers, however, want to know whatthey are paying for when they pay often twice as much for organic milkthan conventional milk.  They want organic farmers to keep to a set ofstrict standards.  To the extent that some larger companies createproduction systems that mimic organic agriculture without truly meetingthe standards, consumers want those companies out from under theorganic label.  The extent to which organic consumers are specificallyinsisting on pasture-fed or simply pesticide-free production is an openquestion, part of the trickiness of organic milk politics.  Ironically,in the 1930s, it was pasture-based farmers who were under critique as“un-ecological,” running dairies on land “unsuitable for agriculture.” In Roosevelt’s time, that meant replacing these hill farms withforests.  Replacing cows with trees may have been good environmentalpolicy at the time, but it also was good for industrial dairying - iteliminated the threat of cheaper, pasture-based milk coming into themarket.  The pasture-elimination policies of the 30s were bad for smalldairy farmers.  Conversely, less flexible pasture access rules will doa lot to protect the smaller organic dairy farmers against the largeindustrial dairies.  However, this lack of flexibility willde-emphasize bioregional agroecologies. 

Consumers who wantorganic, grass-fed milk need to know that pasture is politicallytricky, in terms of ecology, locality, animals, farmer-to-farmer,farmer-to-consumer, and farmer-to-government relationships.  Ifconsumers really want to know “where their food comes from”—and ifthey want their milk produced through agroecological practices—theyneed to realize that ecology has a politics to it, and that organicfarmers might have different, and sometimes opposed, politicalinterests that may make promises of transparency difficult to meet. However, The Organic Movement will never just be about the creation ofstandards.  It is a civic conversation, with and between consumers,farmers, food businesses, and regulatory institutions.  Once we admitthat fact, sustainable farming systems will have a much better chanceof beating the credibility challenge of those who seek to underminethis alternative food system.  If organic dairy farmers want to survivethe current over-supply crisis, honest and trustworthy communicationwith consumers will be their best marketing tool.

Related Links:

New E.U. organic logo set for Europe’s supermarkets

Small is beautiful (and radical)

Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes



]]> <![CDATA[New E.U. organic logo set for Europe’s supermarkets]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=865cc171661f620298f5e51a4a49a770 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-08-new-e.u.-organic-logo-set-for-europes-supermarkets/ Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:03:09 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-08-new-e.u.-organic-logo-set-for-europes-supermarkets/ The Euro-leaf logo. BRUSSELS—The European Union on Monday unveiled a new Green logo that will have to be shown on all pre-packaged organic products produced in Europe from July.

“I’m delighted that we now have a fresh E.U. organic food logo,” said E.U. Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel as she announced that the “Euro-leaf” logo, a green leaf design incorporating the 12 stars of the E.U. flag, had won a competition to find the right image.

“This exercise has raised the profile of organic food and we now have a logo which everyone will be able to identify with. It’s a nice elegant design and I look forward to buying products carrying this logo from July this year,” she added.

The winning logo—said to combine the two themes of nature and Europe—was the result of a pan-European contest open to art and design students. Almost 3,500 logo designs were submitted and evaluated by an international jury. The three logos chosen by the experts were then put online for a public vote and some 130,000 people made the final decision.

The Euro-leaf designed by Dusan Milenkovic, a student from Germany, was the overwhelming online favorite, picking up 63 percent of the votes cast.

From July 1, the chosen logo will appear on all pre-packaged organic products that have been produced in any of the 27 E.U. member states and meet the necessary standards. It will be optional for imported products.

Other private, regional, or national logos will be allowed to appear alongside the E.U. label.

The E.U.‘s organic farming regulation will be amended in the coming weeks to introduce the new logo into law.

Related Links:

The organic movement is a civic process, not a set of standards [corrected]

Obama admin launches new Climate Service and climate.gov

U.N. climate chief raises the temperature with racy novel



]]> The Euro-leaf logo. BRUSSELS—The European Union on Monday unveiled a new Green logo that will have to be shown on all pre-packaged organic products produced in Europe from July.

“I’m delighted that we now have a fresh E.U. organic food logo,” said E.U. Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel as she announced that the “Euro-leaf” logo, a green leaf design incorporating the 12 stars of the E.U. flag, had won a competition to find the right image.

“This exercise has raised the profile of organic food and we now have a logo which everyone will be able to identify with. It’s a nice elegant design and I look forward to buying products carrying this logo from July this year,” she added.

The winning logo—said to combine the two themes of nature and Europe—was the result of a pan-European contest open to art and design students. Almost 3,500 logo designs were submitted and evaluated by an international jury. The three logos chosen by the experts were then put online for a public vote and some 130,000 people made the final decision.

The Euro-leaf designed by Dusan Milenkovic, a student from Germany, was the overwhelming online favorite, picking up 63 percent of the votes cast.

From July 1, the chosen logo will appear on all pre-packaged organic products that have been produced in any of the 27 E.U. member states and meet the necessary standards. It will be optional for imported products.

Other private, regional, or national logos will be allowed to appear alongside the E.U. label.

The E.U.‘s organic farming regulation will be amended in the coming weeks to introduce the new logo into law.

Related Links:

The organic movement is a civic process, not a set of standards [corrected]

Obama admin launches new Climate Service and climate.gov

U.N. climate chief raises the temperature with racy novel



]]> <![CDATA[To flourish, school gardens need more than photo ops]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=dec99434782dfbb2f7bc99068dff05b0 http://www.grist.org/article/behind-all-the-photo-opps-with-the-first-lady-school-gardens-are-in-despera/ Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:00:06 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/behind-all-the-photo-opps-with-the-first-lady-school-gardens-are-in-despera/ This post originally appeared on Ed Bruske’s Slow Cook blog.

——————

Kids from Bancroft School in the White House garden with Michelle Obama. As one of the teachers involved with Michelle Obama and the White House vegetable garden, I’ve been impressed with the sudden surge of public interest in the simple act of children planting seeds. At Bancroft Elementary School, where I work first and foremost as an art teacher, we know only too well the benefits children get from growing their own food. 

But I don’t think the public has any inkling how hard it is for teachers to maintain school gardens like the one we have at Bancroft. Despite all the hoopla over school gardening, the truth is teachers engage in these activities at risk of their jobs. You see, gardening is not part of the mandated school curriculum. We are supposed to be teaching reading and math. As much as we believe school gardens offer a multitude of teaching opportunities, schools do very little to support us. Principals and teachers have been bluntly told that they will lose their jobs if math and reading scores don’t improve. We desperately need help. We need someone to take charge of our school gardens. 

The kids you see in all the photos working with the First Lady in the White House garden, or making breakfast on the Today Show with the Obamas’ chef, Sam Kass, are fifth graders from my school. One of the reasons I chose to work at Bancroft two years ago was its garden. I had just moved back to the Washington area from South Carolina where I grew things pretty much all year round in my own yard. With visions of sunflowers and big tomato plants dancing in my head, I signed up for a community garden plot in D.C. But the waiting list was long. The idea of living without a patch of dirt to play in was hard to swallow. 

Then I arrived at Bancroft. The assistant principal toured me around the school. As we walked through the playground, she casually remarked, “Oh, and that’s the garden.”  We passed four herb boxes and nine raised beds overflowing with giant sunflowers, with tomato plants heavy with fruit, with squash spilling out over the sides. There was even corn! Truthfully, up until that point I had no idea schools had gardens. Planter boxes with a few basil plants, maybe, but nothing like this. 

As I soon discovered, these remarkable gardens were entirely the result of volunteer efforts. Ten years earlier, neighborhood resident Iris Rothman and her partner-in-crime, Nancy Huvendick, along with fifth grade teacher Toni Conklin, had begun acting on a shared vision of the school as a gardener’s Eden. Iris and Toni fought tooth and nail—cut through government red tape, jumped through every bureaucratic hoop—to make way for outside agencies such as the U.S. Botanical Garden to come in and construct the bones of our garden. Casey Trees, a non-profit groups, planted some 40 trees on school grounds. Last year, Iris had the brilliant idea to start a community garden on school property. We now have at least 30 people on the waiting list for plots. 

All of this was accomplished by concerned neighbors and teachers during their free hours. I don’t think the school system ever spent a dime. 

I met Iris when she approached me about collaborating on some art projects in the garden. Up to that point, I had assumed the garden was part of the daily school curriculum. It soon became clear that the work Iris was doing with the kids happened after school or in the summer. Iris worked hard to create opportunities for learning in the garden. But she did not have support from the school administration. They saw gardening as an extra-curricular activity. Disrupting the daily schedule was not an option. 

The garden at Bancroft Elementary evolved on its own over the years. It was never officially introduced to the school’s staff. No system was ever put in place to utilize it within the curriculum. When I arrived, I brought something new: A passion for gardens and a creative mind. Not only was my schedule more flexible than other teachers’, I did not have test scores to worry about. I was able to weave the garden into my own arts curriculum. And since I teach every student in the school, I was able to expose all of them to the joys of horticulture. 

Then came the day when some of my students helped Michelle Obama and Sam Kass break ground for the new kitchen garden at the White House. I returned to Bancroft and told the administration we needed to get our own school garden ready because the First Lady planned to visit. They laughed and told me that while she may have said that, what she actually did was something else. I called Iris. 

As in the past, there was no plan for spring planting at Bancroft. No money had been set aside for seeds. No teachers had garden projects in mind. I approached some local businesses and asked for donations of plants. Whole Foods gave us enough cabbage, broccoli and lettuce seedlings to fill five beds. But how would I get students to plant our garden beds during the school day? Each day Iris and I took art classes to the garden to plant seedlings. We weeded and mulched. By the time Michelle Obama strolled through our garden with a beaming Toni Conklin on her arm, things looked pretty lush. 

After that I began taking my art classes frequently to work in the garden—planting, harvesting, drawing. The White House dropped off tomato plants and we had fifth-graders show 3-year-olds how to plant them. We don’t have a kitchen at school so anytime we wanted to use the produce from the garden in a cooking lesson we had to convert the art room into a kitchen. When the lettuce was ready to eat we got an after-school group to harvest, wash and prepare it for salads. We set out salad toppings—dried cranberries, sunflower seeds, croutons—so kids could create three-dimensional, edible art projects. We picked herbs from the garden to make vinaigrette from scratch. The students were shocked to learn that salad dressing could be “made,” it did not have to be bought at a store. 

Last Spring I signed up for a workshop at the Washington Youth Garden—part of the National Arboretum—to learn how gardens can be used as teaching tools. My classmates were teachers who already had gardens, along with many others who wanted to start gardens at their own schools. Our common bond: a shared desire to get kids busy in the soil. For the first time, I saw just how many people are working hard to create a consistent, citywide school garden program. 

Then in the fall, a new D.C. Farm to School Network sponsored a “Local Flavor Week” to encourage school activities around the idea of fresh, local produce. My principal allowed me to put the rest of my schedule on hold to plan numerous events—cooking demonstrations, a trip to a farm, building cold frames. Most were linked to teaching standards. Every one of our 450 kids participated. 

Many things became clear after that week. The most important and surprising was that every teacher in my school was excited about students having garden experiences like the ones I organized. Most were even willing to sacrifice precious hours to help. I also learned that there are so many dynamic people eager to work with kids on gardening, cooking and nutrition education. Finally, it became plainly evident that while it is possible to tap into this wealth of resources to build a school garden program, it is a FULL- TIME JOB. 

As I said, my new principal allowed me to put everything on hold for Local Flavor Week because she believed in the importance of highlighting these experiences for the students and agreed that all 450 kids should participate. She even paid for one of the buses because the school lacked the funding. We are lucky: Our administration supports our gardening efforts. Many schools are not so fortunate. But even with this unconditional support, the garden program is still a patchwork of volunteer efforts that needs a dedicated individual to transform it into a streamlined resource that every teacher can use to engage her students.

During Local Flavor Week, I still had to teach my full load of art classes even though there were 16 trips and in-school workshops scheduled. Everywhere I went I was actually jogging, not walking. I had to be in at least three places at once on more that one occasion. I had not asked any other staff members to help me coordinate this because none of them had the time. They had their kids all day long. So I was a one-woman show. And I remember thinking, “Wouldn’t it be great if every week could be like this week?” If we had a full-time garden coordinator, that is. 

I had so many teachers after that week thank me and tell me that anytime I want to set up something like that again they would love to participate. I wanted to say, “If I can do it, you can do it.” But the truth is they can’t.

It’s not that classroom teachers aren’t interested. They just have too much  on their plate. And without gardening experience, they just won’t use the school garden. 

For all her great work and effort, Iris Rothman lacks an inside connection to the school, involvement in the schedule, familiarity with the curriculum. She has no power to create or change the curriculum, to implement standards-based activities, train teachers. She even has a hard time convincing the administration to allow her to bring in others who could do all of these things. Fitting it into the schedule would mean more work for administrators who are already overloaded. 

“Healthy Schools’ legislation pending before the D.C. Council would require the city’s schools to create a garden program for the first time, to provide training, planning and technical assistance for existing gardens as well as new ones. The one thing clear to everyone involved in this legislation is that, more than anything, what school gardens need is someone to be in charge, someone to take on this job full-time. 

School gardens illuminate the connections between food, nutrition and our physical and mental well-being. They can change the lives of impressionable children. A resource this valuable should not have to depend on unpaid volunteers or teachers who fear for their jobs.

Related Links:

Echoing Michelle Obama, a D.C. pol pushes ‘healthy schools’

Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes

Washington Times puts screws to city’s food provider, Chartwells



]]> This post originally appeared on Ed Bruske’s Slow Cook blog.

——————

Kids from Bancroft School in the White House garden with Michelle Obama. As one of the teachers involved with Michelle Obama and the White House vegetable garden, I’ve been impressed with the sudden surge of public interest in the simple act of children planting seeds. At Bancroft Elementary School, where I work first and foremost as an art teacher, we know only too well the benefits children get from growing their own food. 

But I don’t think the public has any inkling how hard it is for teachers to maintain school gardens like the one we have at Bancroft. Despite all the hoopla over school gardening, the truth is teachers engage in these activities at risk of their jobs. You see, gardening is not part of the mandated school curriculum. We are supposed to be teaching reading and math. As much as we believe school gardens offer a multitude of teaching opportunities, schools do very little to support us. Principals and teachers have been bluntly told that they will lose their jobs if math and reading scores don’t improve. We desperately need help. We need someone to take charge of our school gardens. 

The kids you see in all the photos working with the First Lady in the White House garden, or making breakfast on the Today Show with the Obamas’ chef, Sam Kass, are fifth graders from my school. One of the reasons I chose to work at Bancroft two years ago was its garden. I had just moved back to the Washington area from South Carolina where I grew things pretty much all year round in my own yard. With visions of sunflowers and big tomato plants dancing in my head, I signed up for a community garden plot in D.C. But the waiting list was long. The idea of living without a patch of dirt to play in was hard to swallow. 

Then I arrived at Bancroft. The assistant principal toured me around the school. As we walked through the playground, she casually remarked, “Oh, and that’s the garden.”  We passed four herb boxes and nine raised beds overflowing with giant sunflowers, with tomato plants heavy with fruit, with squash spilling out over the sides. There was even corn! Truthfully, up until that point I had no idea schools had gardens. Planter boxes with a few basil plants, maybe, but nothing like this. 

As I soon discovered, these remarkable gardens were entirely the result of volunteer efforts. Ten years earlier, neighborhood resident Iris Rothman and her partner-in-crime, Nancy Huvendick, along with fifth grade teacher Toni Conklin, had begun acting on a shared vision of the school as a gardener’s Eden. Iris and Toni fought tooth and nail—cut through government red tape, jumped through every bureaucratic hoop—to make way for outside agencies such as the U.S. Botanical Garden to come in and construct the bones of our garden. Casey Trees, a non-profit groups, planted some 40 trees on school grounds. Last year, Iris had the brilliant idea to start a community garden on school property. We now have at least 30 people on the waiting list for plots. 

All of this was accomplished by concerned neighbors and teachers during their free hours. I don’t think the school system ever spent a dime. 

I met Iris when she approached me about collaborating on some art projects in the garden. Up to that point, I had assumed the garden was part of the daily school curriculum. It soon became clear that the work Iris was doing with the kids happened after school or in the summer. Iris worked hard to create opportunities for learning in the garden. But she did not have support from the school administration. They saw gardening as an extra-curricular activity. Disrupting the daily schedule was not an option. 

The garden at Bancroft Elementary evolved on its own over the years. It was never officially introduced to the school’s staff. No system was ever put in place to utilize it within the curriculum. When I arrived, I brought something new: A passion for gardens and a creative mind. Not only was my schedule more flexible than other teachers’, I did not have test scores to worry about. I was able to weave the garden into my own arts curriculum. And since I teach every student in the school, I was able to expose all of them to the joys of horticulture. 

Then came the day when some of my students helped Michelle Obama and Sam Kass break ground for the new kitchen garden at the White House. I returned to Bancroft and told the administration we needed to get our own school garden ready because the First Lady planned to visit. They laughed and told me that while she may have said that, what she actually did was something else. I called Iris. 

As in the past, there was no plan for spring planting at Bancroft. No money had been set aside for seeds. No teachers had garden projects in mind. I approached some local businesses and asked for donations of plants. Whole Foods gave us enough cabbage, broccoli and lettuce seedlings to fill five beds. But how would I get students to plant our garden beds during the school day? Each day Iris and I took art classes to the garden to plant seedlings. We weeded and mulched. By the time Michelle Obama strolled through our garden with a beaming Toni Conklin on her arm, things looked pretty lush. 

After that I began taking my art classes frequently to work in the garden—planting, harvesting, drawing. The White House dropped off tomato plants and we had fifth-graders show 3-year-olds how to plant them. We don’t have a kitchen at school so anytime we wanted to use the produce from the garden in a cooking lesson we had to convert the art room into a kitchen. When the lettuce was ready to eat we got an after-school group to harvest, wash and prepare it for salads. We set out salad toppings—dried cranberries, sunflower seeds, croutons—so kids could create three-dimensional, edible art projects. We picked herbs from the garden to make vinaigrette from scratch. The students were shocked to learn that salad dressing could be “made,” it did not have to be bought at a store. 

Last Spring I signed up for a workshop at the Washington Youth Garden—part of the National Arboretum—to learn how gardens can be used as teaching tools. My classmates were teachers who already had gardens, along with many others who wanted to start gardens at their own schools. Our common bond: a shared desire to get kids busy in the soil. For the first time, I saw just how many people are working hard to create a consistent, citywide school garden program. 

Then in the fall, a new D.C. Farm to School Network sponsored a “Local Flavor Week” to encourage school activities around the idea of fresh, local produce. My principal allowed me to put the rest of my schedule on hold to plan numerous events—cooking demonstrations, a trip to a farm, building cold frames. Most were linked to teaching standards. Every one of our 450 kids participated. 

Many things became clear after that week. The most important and surprising was that every teacher in my school was excited about students having garden experiences like the ones I organized. Most were even willing to sacrifice precious hours to help. I also learned that there are so many dynamic people eager to work with kids on gardening, cooking and nutrition education. Finally, it became plainly evident that while it is possible to tap into this wealth of resources to build a school garden program, it is a FULL- TIME JOB. 

As I said, my new principal allowed me to put everything on hold for Local Flavor Week because she believed in the importance of highlighting these experiences for the students and agreed that all 450 kids should participate. She even paid for one of the buses because the school lacked the funding. We are lucky: Our administration supports our gardening efforts. Many schools are not so fortunate. But even with this unconditional support, the garden program is still a patchwork of volunteer efforts that needs a dedicated individual to transform it into a streamlined resource that every teacher can use to engage her students.

During Local Flavor Week, I still had to teach my full load of art classes even though there were 16 trips and in-school workshops scheduled. Everywhere I went I was actually jogging, not walking. I had to be in at least three places at once on more that one occasion. I had not asked any other staff members to help me coordinate this because none of them had the time. They had their kids all day long. So I was a one-woman show. And I remember thinking, “Wouldn’t it be great if every week could be like this week?” If we had a full-time garden coordinator, that is. 

I had so many teachers after that week thank me and tell me that anytime I want to set up something like that again they would love to participate. I wanted to say, “If I can do it, you can do it.” But the truth is they can’t.

It’s not that classroom teachers aren’t interested. They just have too much  on their plate. And without gardening experience, they just won’t use the school garden. 

For all her great work and effort, Iris Rothman lacks an inside connection to the school, involvement in the schedule, familiarity with the curriculum. She has no power to create or change the curriculum, to implement standards-based activities, train teachers. She even has a hard time convincing the administration to allow her to bring in others who could do all of these things. Fitting it into the schedule would mean more work for administrators who are already overloaded. 

“Healthy Schools’ legislation pending before the D.C. Council would require the city’s schools to create a garden program for the first time, to provide training, planning and technical assistance for existing gardens as well as new ones. The one thing clear to everyone involved in this legislation is that, more than anything, what school gardens need is someone to be in charge, someone to take on this job full-time. 

School gardens illuminate the connections between food, nutrition and our physical and mental well-being. They can change the lives of impressionable children. A resource this valuable should not have to depend on unpaid volunteers or teachers who fear for their jobs.

Related Links:

Echoing Michelle Obama, a D.C. pol pushes ‘healthy schools’

Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes

Washington Times puts screws to city’s food provider, Chartwells



]]> <![CDATA[USDA makes the right call on school meat safety, animal tracking]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=560b8322a56c0e2e073004ec172e8eee http://www.grist.org/article/usda-makes-the-right-call-on-school-meat-safety-animal-tracking/ Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:24:09 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/usda-makes-the-right-call-on-school-meat-safety-animal-tracking/ From its failure to rein in abuse of farm subsidies to its misguided efforts on international trade, the Obama USDA has disappointed many progressives. But let’s take a moment to offer kudos to USDA Chief Tom Vilsack for two positive developments in one week.

On Thursday, the USDA responded to revelations first published in USAToday regarding safety lapses in the school lunch program. The report indicated that meat which wouldn’t meet safety standards at most national fast food chains was nonetheless sold into the school lunch system and fed to school children. In addition, USAToday also documented a broken system at the USDA for recalling tainted food from schools. Piling on, the NYT revealed a few weeks ago that a form of meat filler commonly used in school lunch meat, aka “pink slime,” was potentially unsafe and yet escaped USDA testing on a routine basis.

Well, the USDA has had enough:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced sweeping steps Thursday to “assure the safety and quality of food” purchased for the National School Lunch Program.The measures include tightening requirements oncompanies that supply ground beef to schools, testing the beef moreoften and more thoroughly, and improving communications within the USDAto “identify potential food safety issues” before children get sick.

... The measures outlined Thursday are intended to ... [bring] the standards and testing protocols in line with those used by the most selective restaurants andretailers. “It’s a big deal,” food safety consultant David Theno saidof the USDA measures. He said the moves will push companies to “play toa higher standard” if they want to continue to supply food to schools.

The USDA also pledged to review the safetyrecords of its school lunch suppliers more carefully and bar companiesthat have had repeated problems with their commercial products.

In an interesting wrinkle, the USDA, in response to a request from Rep. George Miller, has asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the department’s ground beef purchasing program and make recommendations for improvement. The non-partisan NAS is charged with advising the federal government on scientific and technical matters—and will allow the USDA to depoliticize attempts to reform the commodity purchasing program. So good news all around.

The second positive development came today with the USDA’s announcement that it is totally revamping the controversial “National Animal Identification Program.” What started as a voluntary program inspired by a mad-cow disease scare during the Bush administration threatened to morph into a mandatory, full life-cycle tracking program for every farm animal (pets included) in the nation. Facing the controversy, Vilsack embarked on a series of “listening tours” last summer to get feedback from farmers and got an earful.

In response, he has all but scrapped the national system in favor of a to-be-determined new state-level program focused on interstate commerce. Now, this has complications of its own (especially for farmers who send their cattle across state lines for slaughter), but, significantly, whatever the new system is, it will all but exempt small and medium-sized producers who sell locally. Given that many small farmers thought a mandatory animal tracking system could put them out of business, this news comes as a great relief.

These fixes may not be wholesale reform, but they do represent progress. Let’s hope these are the seeds, and not the crumbs, of change.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on making personal lubricant

What’s for breakfast at school today? 13 teaspoons of sugar

Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes



]]> From its failure to rein in abuse of farm subsidies to its misguided efforts on international trade, the Obama USDA has disappointed many progressives. But let’s take a moment to offer kudos to USDA Chief Tom Vilsack for two positive developments in one week.

On Thursday, the USDA responded to revelations first published in USAToday regarding safety lapses in the school lunch program. The report indicated that meat which wouldn’t meet safety standards at most national fast food chains was nonetheless sold into the school lunch system and fed to school children. In addition, USAToday also documented a broken system at the USDA for recalling tainted food from schools. Piling on, the NYT revealed a few weeks ago that a form of meat filler commonly used in school lunch meat, aka “pink slime,” was potentially unsafe and yet escaped USDA testing on a routine basis.

Well, the USDA has had enough:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced sweeping steps Thursday to “assure the safety and quality of food” purchased for the National School Lunch Program.The measures include tightening requirements oncompanies that supply ground beef to schools, testing the beef moreoften and more thoroughly, and improving communications within the USDAto “identify potential food safety issues” before children get sick.

... The measures outlined Thursday are intended to ... [bring] the standards and testing protocols in line with those used by the most selective restaurants andretailers. “It’s a big deal,” food safety consultant David Theno saidof the USDA measures. He said the moves will push companies to “play toa higher standard” if they want to continue to supply food to schools.

The USDA also pledged to review the safetyrecords of its school lunch suppliers more carefully and bar companiesthat have had repeated problems with their commercial products.

In an interesting wrinkle, the USDA, in response to a request from Rep. George Miller, has asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the department’s ground beef purchasing program and make recommendations for improvement. The non-partisan NAS is charged with advising the federal government on scientific and technical matters—and will allow the USDA to depoliticize attempts to reform the commodity purchasing program. So good news all around.

The second positive development came today with the USDA’s announcement that it is totally revamping the controversial “National Animal Identification Program.” What started as a voluntary program inspired by a mad-cow disease scare during the Bush administration threatened to morph into a mandatory, full life-cycle tracking program for every farm animal (pets included) in the nation. Facing the controversy, Vilsack embarked on a series of “listening tours” last summer to get feedback from farmers and got an earful.

In response, he has all but scrapped the national system in favor of a to-be-determined new state-level program focused on interstate commerce. Now, this has complications of its own (especially for farmers who send their cattle across state lines for slaughter), but, significantly, whatever the new system is, it will all but exempt small and medium-sized producers who sell locally. Given that many small farmers thought a mandatory animal tracking system could put them out of business, this news comes as a great relief.

These fixes may not be wholesale reform, but they do represent progress. Let’s hope these are the seeds, and not the crumbs, of change.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on making personal lubricant

What’s for breakfast at school today? 13 teaspoons of sugar

Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes



]]> <![CDATA[How Hurricane Katrina turned me into a citrus fanatic and marmalade maker]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=e75d21302c6fa803fe64b341d5014d4b http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-05-hurricane-katrina-citrus-marmalade/ Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:11:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-05-hurricane-katrina-citrus-marmalade/ Jewels of winter: Kumquats from L’Hoste Organic Citrus Farm in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Photo: April McGreger

For a long time, I never really saw citrus fruits. Lemon, limes, oranges, and even grapefruits were just fruits I often had in my fridge—nice, but unremarkable.

All of that changed in 2005. That’s when I realized that, like so much else, the citrus varieties we have available to us are the dull tip of a spectacular iceberg of biodiversity and deliciousness. Like the red delicious apple, I learned, most supermarket citrus, both conventional and organic, offers but a shadow of the fruit’s true glory.

That fall, I was given the chance to offer communal support—something so elemental, yet, sadly so rare in these days of frenetic consumption. In the weeks following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans native Poppy Tooker, champion of the self-styled “Eat-it-to-Save-it” Movement, found out that the L’Hoste Organic Citrus Farm in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, had escaped Katrina with only minor damage. But the infrastructure and outlets for selling the farm’s produce had been devastated. Through her contacts with Slow Food USA, Tooker got the word out and took orders for the L’Hoste’s prized citrus. I signed on to receive my first 5 boxes.

When my Satsumas arrived, their skin was tinged with green, but what lay beneath it was the sweetest, juiciest, most ethereal oranges I had ever eaten. The following year when I contacted the L’Hostes to order more, it was Lester L’Hoste himself who answered the phone while manning his booth at the Crescent City Farmers Market. I found that they were also the growers of Meyer lemons, both sweet and sour kumquats, two varieties of grapefruit, and more. I ordered some of all of them, and have come to anticipate the first Satsumas and Meyer lemons of late fall just like I do the first sun-ripened tomato of summer. My citrus epiphany led quite naturally to a marmalade conversion. Turns out you don’t have to be British to be endlessly enchanted by the stuff! I’m inclined to believe there is no better defense against the winter doldrums than marmalade, toast, and tea. The concentrated burst of sweet, bitter, and tart feels like warm sunshine on my face and sand between my toes.

And now, here I am in the middle of winter with snow on the ground. Just as I am beginning to believe the preserving season is over, I find myself with my most challenging and rewarding subject yet. Yes, marmalade has a reputation for being fussy. From my experience, however, most of the difficulty of making marmalade can be remedied with a very sharp knife for slicing through the fruit. Other helpful tips include, using a candy thermometer for a more reliable set, and using citrus in its prime. Overripe citrus or citrus that has been sitting around in your refrigerator for weeks will be lower in pectin, therefore, will not set properly.

Marmalade that has a somewhat softer set is still delicious so don’t be deterred. It makes a wonderful glaze for fish, chicken, or pork, as well as a topping for yogurt, pound cake, oatmeal or pudding. I even love it stirred into mashed sweet potatoes and use it as a flavor booster in sweet potato and pumpkin pie filling.

Still too timid to attempt marmalade on your own? The best way to get your feet wet is to take a class or observe a pro. Luckily, you don’t have to go to cross the Atlantic to find skilled marmalade makers. On the west coast, check out classes offered by Brit expat June Taylor of June Taylor Jams or Rachel Saunders of Blue Chair Fruit Company. Easterners, check out Marisa McClellan’s, of foodinjars.com, class in Philadelphia next week.

Know of any other classes offered by skilled marmaladers? How about direct sale, minor purveyors of delicious, organic citrus? Please share this information with the rest of us in comments below! If you aren’t ready to make your own marmalade but you still want to know what all the fuss is about, you can support gifted artisans like June Taylor, Casey Havre of Lou Lou’s Garden, and Rachel Saunders through their online stores. I’d rather receive a jar of their marmalades than a box of truffles on Valentine’s Day. Honey, are you reading this?

Your marmalade epiphany awaits you. Photo: April McGregerThree-Citrus MarmaladeSo far this year I’ve made three-citrus marmalade—a mix of Meyer lemons, Ruby Red grapefruit, and kumquats; a Satsuma-rosemary marmalade; and sour kumquat marmalade. A quick search on the internet will yield all sorts of other esoteric combinations, such as Rangpur lime & ginger; Lemon & Cara Cara orange; or even Bergamot. Start with the best citrus you have access to. I find that you can use sweet oranges in marmalade but it is helps to balance that flavor with a supporting role of a bitter or tart variety.

Ingredients

1 ½ pounds organic citrus—I used grapefruit, sour kumquats, and Meyer lemons, but oranges, limes, and other citrus would also work3 1/2 cups water1/4 cup lemon juice4 cups sugar

Canning equipment: three pint-sized or six 8-ounce or canning jars with rings and lids, a funnel, tongs, a ladle, a wide 12-quart pot, a candy or deep fry thermometer, a sheet pan, and a small 3 to 4 quart pot.

Instructions

Scrub your citrus. For oranges, grapefruit, lemons, or limes, slice off the top and the bottom of the fruit, deep enough so you can see the flesh. Half the fruit, squeeze out the excess juice and reserve. Slice each half into halves or thirds, or even quarters, depending on the size of the fruit, then slice thinly, peel, pith, and all. Discard the seeds as you go. For kumquats, slice the fruit thinly, and discard the seeds.

Place the sliced citrus in a wide preserving pan. Add the reserved juice and the water. Set aside for 4 hours.

After 4 hours, bring the fruit mixture to a boil, turned down to a simmer, and cook uncovered until the fruit is tender, about 40 to 45 minutes.

While the marmalade is cooking, preheat your oven to 250 degrees F. Place your washed jars on a sheet pan and place in the oven. Bring a 3 to 4 quart pot of water to a boil and boil your lids, as well as your tongs, ladle, and funnel for 10 minutes to sterilize before canning the marmalade.

When the fruit is tender, stir in the sugar and lemon juice and bring back to boil. Attach a candy or deep fry thermometer to the side of your pot. Boil rapidly, stirring occasionally until the thermometer registers between 222 and 225 degrees F.

Test the set of the marmalade with the plate test. Drop a teaspoon of marmalade on a plate and place in the freezer for 1 minute. If it thickens up on the plate, it is done.

Remove the jars from the oven. Pour the marmalade into the sterilized jars, leaving a 1/4-inch of headspace, and top with sterilized lids. Do not disturb for 24 hours so that a proper set can be achieved. After 24 hours, check to see that the jars have sealed. Refrigerate any unsealed marmalades and use immediately. The sealed jars can be stored in a cool, dark place for up to one year.

 

Related Links:

Hello, Dal-ly: curried red lentils

Thick as a foggy, drizzly night: smoky-spicy split peas

Winter cold no match for spicy kimchi stew



]]> Jewels of winter: Kumquats from L’Hoste Organic Citrus Farm in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Photo: April McGreger

For a long time, I never really saw citrus fruits. Lemon, limes, oranges, and even grapefruits were just fruits I often had in my fridge—nice, but unremarkable.

All of that changed in 2005. That’s when I realized that, like so much else, the citrus varieties we have available to us are the dull tip of a spectacular iceberg of biodiversity and deliciousness. Like the red delicious apple, I learned, most supermarket citrus, both conventional and organic, offers but a shadow of the fruit’s true glory.

That fall, I was given the chance to offer communal support—something so elemental, yet, sadly so rare in these days of frenetic consumption. In the weeks following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans native Poppy Tooker, champion of the self-styled “Eat-it-to-Save-it” Movement, found out that the L’Hoste Organic Citrus Farm in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, had escaped Katrina with only minor damage. But the infrastructure and outlets for selling the farm’s produce had been devastated. Through her contacts with Slow Food USA, Tooker got the word out and took orders for the L’Hoste’s prized citrus. I signed on to receive my first 5 boxes.

When my Satsumas arrived, their skin was tinged with green, but what lay beneath it was the sweetest, juiciest, most ethereal oranges I had ever eaten. The following year when I contacted the L’Hostes to order more, it was Lester L’Hoste himself who answered the phone while manning his booth at the Crescent City Farmers Market. I found that they were also the growers of Meyer lemons, both sweet and sour kumquats, two varieties of grapefruit, and more. I ordered some of all of them, and have come to anticipate the first Satsumas and Meyer lemons of late fall just like I do the first sun-ripened tomato of summer. My citrus epiphany led quite naturally to a marmalade conversion. Turns out you don’t have to be British to be endlessly enchanted by the stuff! I’m inclined to believe there is no better defense against the winter doldrums than marmalade, toast, and tea. The concentrated burst of sweet, bitter, and tart feels like warm sunshine on my face and sand between my toes.

And now, here I am in the middle of winter with snow on the ground. Just as I am beginning to believe the preserving season is over, I find myself with my most challenging and rewarding subject yet. Yes, marmalade has a reputation for being fussy. From my experience, however, most of the difficulty of making marmalade can be remedied with a very sharp knife for slicing through the fruit. Other helpful tips include, using a candy thermometer for a more reliable set, and using citrus in its prime. Overripe citrus or citrus that has been sitting around in your refrigerator for weeks will be lower in pectin, therefore, will not set properly.

Marmalade that has a somewhat softer set is still delicious so don’t be deterred. It makes a wonderful glaze for fish, chicken, or pork, as well as a topping for yogurt, pound cake, oatmeal or pudding. I even love it stirred into mashed sweet potatoes and use it as a flavor booster in sweet potato and pumpkin pie filling.

Still too timid to attempt marmalade on your own? The best way to get your feet wet is to take a class or observe a pro. Luckily, you don’t have to go to cross the Atlantic to find skilled marmalade makers. On the west coast, check out classes offered by Brit expat June Taylor of June Taylor Jams or Rachel Saunders of Blue Chair Fruit Company. Easterners, check out Marisa McClellan’s, of foodinjars.com, class in Philadelphia next week.

Know of any other classes offered by skilled marmaladers? How about direct sale, minor purveyors of delicious, organic citrus? Please share this information with the rest of us in comments below! If you aren’t ready to make your own marmalade but you still want to know what all the fuss is about, you can support gifted artisans like June Taylor, Casey Havre of Lou Lou’s Garden, and Rachel Saunders through their online stores. I’d rather receive a jar of their marmalades than a box of truffles on Valentine’s Day. Honey, are you reading this?

Your marmalade epiphany awaits you. Photo: April McGregerThree-Citrus MarmaladeSo far this year I’ve made three-citrus marmalade—a mix of Meyer lemons, Ruby Red grapefruit, and kumquats; a Satsuma-rosemary marmalade; and sour kumquat marmalade. A quick search on the internet will yield all sorts of other esoteric combinations, such as Rangpur lime & ginger; Lemon & Cara Cara orange; or even Bergamot. Start with the best citrus you have access to. I find that you can use sweet oranges in marmalade but it is helps to balance that flavor with a supporting role of a bitter or tart variety.

Ingredients

1 ½ pounds organic citrus—I used grapefruit, sour kumquats, and Meyer lemons, but oranges, limes, and other citrus would also work3 1/2 cups water1/4 cup lemon juice4 cups sugar

Canning equipment: three pint-sized or six 8-ounce or canning jars with rings and lids, a funnel, tongs, a ladle, a wide 12-quart pot, a candy or deep fry thermometer, a sheet pan, and a small 3 to 4 quart pot.

Instructions

Scrub your citrus. For oranges, grapefruit, lemons, or limes, slice off the top and the bottom of the fruit, deep enough so you can see the flesh. Half the fruit, squeeze out the excess juice and reserve. Slice each half into halves or thirds, or even quarters, depending on the size of the fruit, then slice thinly, peel, pith, and all. Discard the seeds as you go. For kumquats, slice the fruit thinly, and discard the seeds.

Place the sliced citrus in a wide preserving pan. Add the reserved juice and the water. Set aside for 4 hours.

After 4 hours, bring the fruit mixture to a boil, turned down to a simmer, and cook uncovered until the fruit is tender, about 40 to 45 minutes.

While the marmalade is cooking, preheat your oven to 250 degrees F. Place your washed jars on a sheet pan and place in the oven. Bring a 3 to 4 quart pot of water to a boil and boil your lids, as well as your tongs, ladle, and funnel for 10 minutes to sterilize before canning the marmalade.

When the fruit is tender, stir in the sugar and lemon juice and bring back to boil. Attach a candy or deep fry thermometer to the side of your pot. Boil rapidly, stirring occasionally until the thermometer registers between 222 and 225 degrees F.

Test the set of the marmalade with the plate test. Drop a teaspoon of marmalade on a plate and place in the freezer for 1 minute. If it thickens up on the plate, it is done.

Remove the jars from the oven. Pour the marmalade into the sterilized jars, leaving a 1/4-inch of headspace, and top with sterilized lids. Do not disturb for 24 hours so that a proper set can be achieved. After 24 hours, check to see that the jars have sealed. Refrigerate any unsealed marmalades and use immediately. The sealed jars can be stored in a cool, dark place for up to one year.

 

Related Links:

Hello, Dal-ly: curried red lentils

Thick as a foggy, drizzly night: smoky-spicy split peas

Winter cold no match for spicy kimchi stew



]]> <![CDATA[Hello, Dal-ly: curried red lentils]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=d613852680dfbe0544d3cdbc7472bcb2 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-05-hello-dal-ly-curried-red-lentils/ Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:13:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-05-hello-dal-ly-curried-red-lentils/  In Tom’s Kitchen, Grist’s food editor discusses some of thequick-and-easy things he gets up to in, well, his kitchen. He thinksthe column name sucks—please help him rename it. Email ideas totphilpott[at]grist[dot]org. Forgive him for the lame iPhonephotography.

—————

Mise en place: getting it together in Tom’s kitchen. Photo: Tom PhilpottOn page 304 of Deborah Madison’s masterpiece Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone, there’s a recipe called, with undue modesty, “Red Lentil Dal with Aromatics.”

The dish is gorgeous—and simple. You saute onion, garlic, and chile in ghee; add lentils, turmeric, and water, and cook until soft. You finish with shallots fried in ghee with mustard seeds and bay leaves, and finally some coconut milk. That’s it. The result gets depth and richness from the coconut milk and fried shallots; and this incredible, full curry flavor from the turmeric, mustards seeds, and bay. It’s a pure, elemental dish—perfect for warming up after a cold day outside.

The curry flavor in the dish surprised me. It really only has two spices associated with curry—mustard seeds and turmeric. I had always assumed to get a good, full curry flavor, you have to either grind a bunch of whole spices—cinnamon, cardamon seeds, cloves, etc.—or buy some pre-gound mix at the grocery store and hope for the best (because pre-ground spice mixes turn to sawdust with shocking speed). Deborah’s dish taught me that just a couple of well-chosen spices can deliver the goods.

Indeed, It wasn’t until I this recipe dish seven or eight years ago that I really got red lentils at all. They’re quick—they cook in little more than 30 minutes. And, goosed with curry spices and aromatics, they taste really, really good.

These days, I use Madison’s recipe only occasionally—when I have all the ingredients on hand (the absent ones typically being coconut milk and shallots, both of which I adore). When I don’t have them around, I do a kind of slapdash version, which I will describe now.

My hacked version relies on onions caramelized in butter (when I run out of onions, cooking becomes difficult) and whetever curry spices I have on hand. The onions, sweet and buttery, give the dish a savory depth that approaches, but doesn’t quite reach, the splendor of Madison’s. And the random nature of the curry spices I have on hand give the dish an unpredictability I treasure.

Mise en place.• A good chunk of butter, about three tablespoons. (I’ve been using Organic Valley “pasture butter.”) Especially without the coconut milk, butter gives this dish richness. I don’t much like store-bought ghee, and am usually too pressed for time or lazy to make my own from butter. You could use good-quality vegetable oil in a pinch—or a combination of butter and oil. Homemade ghee is the gold standard. • 2 small onions, halved lengthwise and sliced thinly.• Curry spices. I really recommend keeping a store of black mustard seeds around. Other ones are turmeric, cinnamon, cardamon, and even store-bought “curry” mix. something hot is neccessary—crushed chile flakes, hot paprika, etc. Note: whole spices, like cinnamon stick and cardamon seed, add real vibrancy to the dish, and need not be ground. (See below.) • 2-4 cloves garlic (I use four), chopped fine. • A knuckle-sized knob of ginger, peeled and chopped fine, optional but recommended (note to self—why am I always out of ginger? I love the stuff.) • I cup red lentils, rinsed and picked over for rocks, then drained. • 3 cups water• Good sea salt• A loaded pepper grinder• Something green—preferably cilantro, but parsley works, too—chopped.

Process: In a medium-sized heavy-bottomed pot, heat butter over medium-low heat. When the butter has melted and its foam has subsided, add the sliced onion. Turn heat to a gentle medium. (Note: to aid the caramelizing process, i sometimes add a pinch of sugar.) Now add the spices—a little of this and a little of that. Definitely a full teaspoon of mustard seeds. If you have a small chunk of cinnamon stick, add it; two or three cardamon seeds would be good. You’ll fish them out later, or someone will accidently bite into one. I guarantee your the risk-reward ratio is favorable here. Sprinkle on a heavy pinch of turmeric, by all means, and “curry powder,” too; and whetever else you have in the way of curry spices. And good pinch of spicy paprika or crushed chile. Stir in spices. Cook, stirring often, until onions soften. Make sure they don’t scorch; turn down heat if they threaten to. When the onions are soft, turn heat to low and stir occasionally. Be patient. Soon enough, you will have lovely brown onions. When the onions have browned, stir in the garlic and, if you have it, the ginger. Let it cook another minute and add the lentils. Stir to coat with the curried brown onions. Add the water, bring to a boil over high heat, turn heat to lowest setting and cover. They’ll cook in 30-40 minutes. Check occasionally to make sure they’re not drying out; if so, add some hot water. Like split peas, they should be very soft—a kind of rough paste. When they’re done, taste, and add a half teaspoon of salt and a generous grinding of pepper. Then taste again. Note how the salt sparked everything to life. Correct for salt, and serve.

I serve them with brown rice, topped with chopped parsley. To take the dish to the next level, add some sauteed, curried collard greens to the side. All of that, plus a raw cabbage salad brightened with fresh lemon juice and chopped parsley, make a simple, delicious winter dinner.

This sort of food seems best-suited to beer—one with enough sweetness and roastiness to stand up to the spice. I enjoyed it recently with Duck-Rabbit Porter. I bet a zippy, dry Riesling would work, too.

Related Links:

How Hurricane Katrina turned me into a citrus fanatic and marmalade maker

Thick as a foggy, drizzly night: smoky-spicy split peas

Winter cold no match for spicy kimchi stew



]]>  In Tom’s Kitchen, Grist’s food editor discusses some of thequick-and-easy things he gets up to in, well, his kitchen. He thinksthe column name sucks—please help him rename it. Email ideas totphilpott[at]grist[dot]org. Forgive him for the lame iPhonephotography.

—————

Mise en place: getting it together in Tom’s kitchen. Photo: Tom PhilpottOn page 304 of Deborah Madison’s masterpiece Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone, there’s a recipe called, with undue modesty, “Red Lentil Dal with Aromatics.”

The dish is gorgeous—and simple. You saute onion, garlic, and chile in ghee; add lentils, turmeric, and water, and cook until soft. You finish with shallots fried in ghee with mustard seeds and bay leaves, and finally some coconut milk. That’s it. The result gets depth and richness from the coconut milk and fried shallots; and this incredible, full curry flavor from the turmeric, mustards seeds, and bay. It’s a pure, elemental dish—perfect for warming up after a cold day outside.

The curry flavor in the dish surprised me. It really only has two spices associated with curry—mustard seeds and turmeric. I had always assumed to get a good, full curry flavor, you have to either grind a bunch of whole spices—cinnamon, cardamon seeds, cloves, etc.—or buy some pre-gound mix at the grocery store and hope for the best (because pre-ground spice mixes turn to sawdust with shocking speed). Deborah’s dish taught me that just a couple of well-chosen spices can deliver the goods.

Indeed, It wasn’t until I this recipe dish seven or eight years ago that I really got red lentils at all. They’re quick—they cook in little more than 30 minutes. And, goosed with curry spices and aromatics, they taste really, really good.

These days, I use Madison’s recipe only occasionally—when I have all the ingredients on hand (the absent ones typically being coconut milk and shallots, both of which I adore). When I don’t have them around, I do a kind of slapdash version, which I will describe now.

My hacked version relies on onions caramelized in butter (when I run out of onions, cooking becomes difficult) and whetever curry spices I have on hand. The onions, sweet and buttery, give the dish a savory depth that approaches, but doesn’t quite reach, the splendor of Madison’s. And the random nature of the curry spices I have on hand give the dish an unpredictability I treasure.

Mise en place.• A good chunk of butter, about three tablespoons. (I’ve been using Organic Valley “pasture butter.”) Especially without the coconut milk, butter gives this dish richness. I don’t much like store-bought ghee, and am usually too pressed for time or lazy to make my own from butter. You could use good-quality vegetable oil in a pinch—or a combination of butter and oil. Homemade ghee is the gold standard. • 2 small onions, halved lengthwise and sliced thinly.• Curry spices. I really recommend keeping a store of black mustard seeds around. Other ones are turmeric, cinnamon, cardamon, and even store-bought “curry” mix. something hot is neccessary—crushed chile flakes, hot paprika, etc. Note: whole spices, like cinnamon stick and cardamon seed, add real vibrancy to the dish, and need not be ground. (See below.) • 2-4 cloves garlic (I use four), chopped fine. • A knuckle-sized knob of ginger, peeled and chopped fine, optional but recommended (note to self—why am I always out of ginger? I love the stuff.) • I cup red lentils, rinsed and picked over for rocks, then drained. • 3 cups water• Good sea salt• A loaded pepper grinder• Something green—preferably cilantro, but parsley works, too—chopped.

Process: In a medium-sized heavy-bottomed pot, heat butter over medium-low heat. When the butter has melted and its foam has subsided, add the sliced onion. Turn heat to a gentle medium. (Note: to aid the caramelizing process, i sometimes add a pinch of sugar.) Now add the spices—a little of this and a little of that. Definitely a full teaspoon of mustard seeds. If you have a small chunk of cinnamon stick, add it; two or three cardamon seeds would be good. You’ll fish them out later, or someone will accidently bite into one. I guarantee your the risk-reward ratio is favorable here. Sprinkle on a heavy pinch of turmeric, by all means, and “curry powder,” too; and whetever else you have in the way of curry spices. And good pinch of spicy paprika or crushed chile. Stir in spices. Cook, stirring often, until onions soften. Make sure they don’t scorch; turn down heat if they threaten to. When the onions are soft, turn heat to low and stir occasionally. Be patient. Soon enough, you will have lovely brown onions. When the onions have browned, stir in the garlic and, if you have it, the ginger. Let it cook another minute and add the lentils. Stir to coat with the curried brown onions. Add the water, bring to a boil over high heat, turn heat to lowest setting and cover. They’ll cook in 30-40 minutes. Check occasionally to make sure they’re not drying out; if so, add some hot water. Like split peas, they should be very soft—a kind of rough paste. When they’re done, taste, and add a half teaspoon of salt and a generous grinding of pepper. Then taste again. Note how the salt sparked everything to life. Correct for salt, and serve.

I serve them with brown rice, topped with chopped parsley. To take the dish to the next level, add some sauteed, curried collard greens to the side. All of that, plus a raw cabbage salad brightened with fresh lemon juice and chopped parsley, make a simple, delicious winter dinner.

This sort of food seems best-suited to beer—one with enough sweetness and roastiness to stand up to the spice. I enjoyed it recently with Duck-Rabbit Porter. I bet a zippy, dry Riesling would work, too.

Related Links:

How Hurricane Katrina turned me into a citrus fanatic and marmalade maker

Thick as a foggy, drizzly night: smoky-spicy split peas

Winter cold no match for spicy kimchi stew



]]> <![CDATA[Whatever happened to the government’s war on raw milk? Just a shift in tactics]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=97b745cc32959022813dd260695ead61 http://www.grist.org/article/whatever-happened-to-the-governments-war-on-raw-milk-just-a-shift-in-tactic/ Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:59:24 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/whatever-happened-to-the-governments-war-on-raw-milk-just-a-shift-in-tactic/ When the current phaseof a nearly century-long government campaign to convince American consumers toabandon raw milk launched in 2006, heavy-handed intimidation tactics were theorder of the day.

Kentucky farmer GaryOakes was questioned so intensively by agents from the Ohio Department ofAgriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration while delivering milk toconsumers in a Cinciannati parking lot that spring that he was hospitalizedthree times for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Michigan farmerRichard Hebron had more than $8,000 of dairy products confiscated in a “sting”operation outside Ann Arbor on Columbus Day weekend of 2006; for five monthsafterwards, he was threatened with criminal prosecution that might have landedhim in jail, before finally being let off with a small fine. And Mennonitefarmer Mark Nolt endured three raids on his raw dairy—including confiscation of expensive milk and cheese-making equipment—by state police, FDA, andPennsylvania Department of Agriculture agents during 2007 and 2008.

The fact that theheavy-handed intimidation operations against raw dairies have abated over thelast couple years shouldn’t be mistaken for a letup in the federal and statecampaign against raw milk, though. Rather, there has been a shift in tactics.

Those earlier assaultson owners of small farms generated enough unfavorable publicity that federaland state authorities have opted for a less distasteful approach. The emphasisnow is on ever-closer regulatory oversight of raw milk sellers anddistributors, as well as court actions.

A major target over thelast year has been private buying groups. These groups of anywhere from a fewdozen to hundreds of consumers have organized in states where raw milk eitheris banned for general sale, or else available only from dairy farms. They havegrown out of the exploding popularity of raw milk and the resulting demand byconsumers to be able to conveniently obtain raw milk without traveling hours toa farm. In many states, they have long been tolerated ... until now.

In Georgia last October,state agriculture authorities confiscated more than 100 gallons of raw milkpurchased by members of a buying group from farms in neighboring SouthCarolina, where raw milk can be legally sold. The group had been in operationfor five years without any problem.

In November, Missouri’sattorney general sued a farm couple after their daughters sold raw milk toundercover public health investigators. The girls were distributing the milk toregular buyers from a health store parking lot, which is legal in Missouri. Butwhen the girls apparently agreed to sell some extra milk to the undercoveragents, they entered a gray area. Yet undercover agents and state attorneygeneral involvement would seem a little extreme, if indeed there was atransgression.

Even liberalMassachusetts, which has for years tolerated buying groups delivering raw milkfrom farms in the central and western parts of the state to buyers in theBoston area and elsewhere, has gotten in on the act. It has sentcease-and-desist orders to three buying clubs in the last month, even thoughMassachusetts hasn’t had a single illness from raw milk in more than a decade.

The commissioner ofMassachusetts’ Department of Agricultural Resources, Scott Soares, contendsthat it’s raw milk’s growing popularity that has made his people nervous,rather than any grand strategy to sabotage raw milk sales. “We’re seeing a lotmore interest and growth in raw milk,” he says. “We recognize there’s a demandfor raw milk.” His department supports raw milk sales by farms as a means ofeconomic development, but says its main concern about the buying groups is thatbecause they aren’t regulated, there is “a loss of control when milk leaves thefarm and there are no guarantees the milk will be held at the propertemperature.”

Ground zero in theregulatory assault on raw milk is Wisconsin, which officially prohibits thesale of raw milk, but has similarly turned a blind eye to private buying groupsof various sorts over the last decade. The agency blames ever-bolder raw milkproducers and buying groups for upsetting the delicate balance that hadexisted. According to Donna Gilson, spokesperson for Wisconsin’s Department ofAgriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. “Newspaper stories started poppingup about farmers selling raw milk. Some of the stories said they had found alegal way to do it. There is not a legal way to do it. They were right in ourface with it.” 

Since then, at leastseven dairy farms and buying groups have either received orders prohibitingtheir raw milk activities, or demanding detailed information about theiractivities, from Wisconsin’s DATCP, in anticipation of a stop order. Some dozens of other dairies havereceived warning letters.

“We’ve never seenanything as aggressive and coordinated as what’s happening in Wisconsin,” saysPete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which helpsdefend raw dairies under state and federal assault. 

It’s hard not toconclude that these seemingly disparate efforts aren’t being coordinated, andindeed, there is evidence they have been. Last year, the head of one Wisconsinbuying club, Max Kane, used the equivalent of a state freedom-of-informationact request to obtain email exchanges between FDA, DATCP, and other publichealth and agriculture officials in the Midwest; the emails detailed plans togo after possibly twenty buying groups in Illinois. The plan, according to theemails, was to go after the buying groups one at a time, for maximum deterrenteffect.

Increasingly, America’s publichealth establishment looks out on the food landscape and sees growing hordes ofraw milk consumers. While no one knows for sure how many Americans are drinkingraw milk—estimates range from 500,000 to as many as 10 million or more—weknow the numbers are rising because more dairies and more buyinggroups are being established to handle production and distribution. Can the FDAand its state brethren disrupt supplies enough to discourage growing demand?The answer to that question isn’t yet certain, but what is clear is that theauthorities are trying very hard. 

Related Links:

FDA on BPA: Our hands are tied

Can a new USDA advisory committee make the dairy industry less pathetic?

Scientists confirm link between BPA and heart disease in humans



]]> When the current phaseof a nearly century-long government campaign to convince American consumers toabandon raw milk launched in 2006, heavy-handed intimidation tactics were theorder of the day.

Kentucky farmer GaryOakes was questioned so intensively by agents from the Ohio Department ofAgriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration while delivering milk toconsumers in a Cinciannati parking lot that spring that he was hospitalizedthree times for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Michigan farmerRichard Hebron had more than $8,000 of dairy products confiscated in a “sting”operation outside Ann Arbor on Columbus Day weekend of 2006; for five monthsafterwards, he was threatened with criminal prosecution that might have landedhim in jail, before finally being let off with a small fine. And Mennonitefarmer Mark Nolt endured three raids on his raw dairy—including confiscation of expensive milk and cheese-making equipment—by state police, FDA, andPennsylvania Department of Agriculture agents during 2007 and 2008.

The fact that theheavy-handed intimidation operations against raw dairies have abated over thelast couple years shouldn’t be mistaken for a letup in the federal and statecampaign against raw milk, though. Rather, there has been a shift in tactics.

Those earlier assaultson owners of small farms generated enough unfavorable publicity that federaland state authorities have opted for a less distasteful approach. The emphasisnow is on ever-closer regulatory oversight of raw milk sellers anddistributors, as well as court actions.

A major target over thelast year has been private buying groups. These groups of anywhere from a fewdozen to hundreds of consumers have organized in states where raw milk eitheris banned for general sale, or else available only from dairy farms. They havegrown out of the exploding popularity of raw milk and the resulting demand byconsumers to be able to conveniently obtain raw milk without traveling hours toa farm. In many states, they have long been tolerated ... until now.

In Georgia last October,state agriculture authorities confiscated more than 100 gallons of raw milkpurchased by members of a buying group from farms in neighboring SouthCarolina, where raw milk can be legally sold. The group had been in operationfor five years without any problem.

In November, Missouri’sattorney general sued a farm couple after their daughters sold raw milk toundercover public health investigators. The girls were distributing the milk toregular buyers from a health store parking lot, which is legal in Missouri. Butwhen the girls apparently agreed to sell some extra milk to the undercoveragents, they entered a gray area. Yet undercover agents and state attorneygeneral involvement would seem a little extreme, if indeed there was atransgression.

Even liberalMassachusetts, which has for years tolerated buying groups delivering raw milkfrom farms in the central and western parts of the state to buyers in theBoston area and elsewhere, has gotten in on the act. It has sentcease-and-desist orders to three buying clubs in the last month, even thoughMassachusetts hasn’t had a single illness from raw milk in more than a decade.

The commissioner ofMassachusetts’ Department of Agricultural Resources, Scott Soares, contendsthat it’s raw milk’s growing popularity that has made his people nervous,rather than any grand strategy to sabotage raw milk sales. “We’re seeing a lotmore interest and growth in raw milk,” he says. “We recognize there’s a demandfor raw milk.” His department supports raw milk sales by farms as a means ofeconomic development, but says its main concern about the buying groups is thatbecause they aren’t regulated, there is “a loss of control when milk leaves thefarm and there are no guarantees the milk will be held at the propertemperature.”

Ground zero in theregulatory assault on raw milk is Wisconsin, which officially prohibits thesale of raw milk, but has similarly turned a blind eye to private buying groupsof various sorts over the last decade. The agency blames ever-bolder raw milkproducers and buying groups for upsetting the delicate balance that hadexisted. According to Donna Gilson, spokesperson for Wisconsin’s Department ofAgriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. “Newspaper stories started poppingup about farmers selling raw milk. Some of the stories said they had found alegal way to do it. There is not a legal way to do it. They were right in ourface with it.” 

Since then, at leastseven dairy farms and buying groups have either received orders prohibitingtheir raw milk activities, or demanding detailed information about theiractivities, from Wisconsin’s DATCP, in anticipation of a stop order. Some dozens of other dairies havereceived warning letters.

“We’ve never seenanything as aggressive and coordinated as what’s happening in Wisconsin,” saysPete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which helpsdefend raw dairies under state and federal assault. 

It’s hard not toconclude that these seemingly disparate efforts aren’t being coordinated, andindeed, there is evidence they have been. Last year, the head of one Wisconsinbuying club, Max Kane, used the equivalent of a state freedom-of-informationact request to obtain email exchanges between FDA, DATCP, and other publichealth and agriculture officials in the Midwest; the emails detailed plans togo after possibly twenty buying groups in Illinois. The plan, according to theemails, was to go after the buying groups one at a time, for maximum deterrenteffect.

Increasingly, America’s publichealth establishment looks out on the food landscape and sees growing hordes ofraw milk consumers. While no one knows for sure how many Americans are drinkingraw milk—estimates range from 500,000 to as many as 10 million or more—weknow the numbers are rising because more dairies and more buyinggroups are being established to handle production and distribution. Can the FDAand its state brethren disrupt supplies enough to discourage growing demand?The answer to that question isn’t yet certain, but what is clear is that theauthorities are trying very hard. 

Related Links:

FDA on BPA: Our hands are tied

Can a new USDA advisory committee make the dairy industry less pathetic?

Scientists confirm link between BPA and heart disease in humans



]]> <![CDATA[Me, on Edible Radio]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=a73856647a4953895956eb939cbb3de7 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-05-me-on-edible-radio/ Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:32:58 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-05-me-on-edible-radio/ Sometimes when I’m interviewed on the radio, it’s really awkward. The interviewer doesn’t know or understand the topic and asks a senseless question; or I have five seconds to construct the perfect soundbite and flub it; sometimes both.

Other times, I get an interlocutor who’s immersed in the topic, puts me at ease, gives me time to, well, ramble, and asks great follow-up questions. Kate Manchester of Edible Radio is my ideal interviewer. Here find the podcast of our talk last week. (Don’t be put off by the massive mugshot that looms over the play tab.) We talk about Maverick Farms, the genius of multi-farm CSAs in mountain areas, and the importance of food in rebuilding robust community-level economies.

Related Links:

Four stories that should have changed the media narrative ... but didn’t

Watch Yes Men stick it to Archer Daniels Midland

Oscar smiles upon ‘Food, Inc.,’ stiffs ‘Mr. Fox’



]]> Sometimes when I’m interviewed on the radio, it’s really awkward. The interviewer doesn’t know or understand the topic and asks a senseless question; or I have five seconds to construct the perfect soundbite and flub it; sometimes both.

Other times, I get an interlocutor who’s immersed in the topic, puts me at ease, gives me time to, well, ramble, and asks great follow-up questions. Kate Manchester of Edible Radio is my ideal interviewer. Here find the podcast of our talk last week. (Don’t be put off by the massive mugshot that looms over the play tab.) We talk about Maverick Farms, the genius of multi-farm CSAs in mountain areas, and the importance of food in rebuilding robust community-level economies.

Related Links:

Four stories that should have changed the media narrative ... but didn’t

Watch Yes Men stick it to Archer Daniels Midland

Oscar smiles upon ‘Food, Inc.,’ stiffs ‘Mr. Fox’



]]> <![CDATA[The N2 dilemma: Is America fertilizing disaster?]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=1228d088f340f495f3a2dca7128bb55f http://www.grist.org/article/gristseries-the-n2-dilemma-is-america-fertilizing-disaster/ Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:00:48 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gristseries-the-n2-dilemma-is-america-fertilizing-disaster/ Series redirect.

Related Links:

Coal: clean it up or move on?

Climate Citizens

A rollicking tour of America’s energy landscape



]]> Series redirect.

Related Links:

Coal: clean it up or move on?

Climate Citizens

A rollicking tour of America’s energy landscape



]]> <![CDATA[Fish for Thought]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=c3041e7239476e2242145b7fabc26bd2 http://www.grist.org/article/fish-for-thought/ Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:18:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fish-for-thought/ Editor’s Note: Anna wrote this post (and several others) before leaving on maternity leave. She gave birth to a healthy baby girl in December.

To eat fish, or not? If you’re pregnant, nursing, or even thinking about becoming pregnant, it’s a Catch-22. Seafood is the best possible source of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid DHA, which is critical for a baby’s brain and eye development, both in utero and in the “fourth trimester,” while the baby is nursing and the brain is still developing. But there’s a catch: seafood contains contaminants that can be harmful to babies—particularly methylmercury, which can harm the developing nervous system, causing subtle deficits in language, memory, motor skills, perception, and behavior.So for a pregnant woman, the decision whether to eat fish is now freighted with consequences.  Eat fish, and you’re putting your baby’s brain at risk of from toxic contaminants.  Skip fish, and you’re denying your baby’s brain of crucial nourishment. 

Pregnant and nursing women never asked to make this choice. 

Mercury is everywhere, even in the air we breathe.  It comes from a variety of sources, but the largest in the US are coal-fired power plants, which exhale elemental mercury in the fumes of coal smoke.  The mercury drifts around on air currents, and eventually settles into water bodies, where bacteria convertit into a far more troublesome form called methylmercury.  Methylmercury binds to protein,  and accumulates in every-higher concentrations at every step of the food chain.  It’s poison. It hurts babies’ brains. All fish contain some methylmercury, and some fish species contain enough that doctors recommend that expectant mothers avoid eating them completely.

And that’s a shame, since there’s s no better source of DHAs than fish.  DHAs build brain connectors while a baby’s body isdeveloping in the womb. 

So, there, in a nutshell, is the dilemma.  As a community, we’ve allowed one of the most healthful foods for pregnant mothers to become contaminated with a compound that can harm developing babies’ nervous systems.  We’ve given polluters free rein; but left thetough choices to women, and the hardships to the children they bringinto the world.

What’s the right choice for an expecting mother? Well, as a fisherman’s daughter, a former Puget Sound gillnetter myself, andproud resident of “Salmon Nation,” I believe in the power offish—particularly salmon—as a super food. And the more I read, the moreI believe it’s also super brain food. My favorite book about nutrition during pregnancy and early childhood,Nina Planck’s Real Food for Mother and Baby, goes so far as to say thatyour baby’s brain is “made of fish.”

But that decision—“Yes, I’ll eat fish”—prompts one question more:  How much fish is safe?

Well, it depends on the type of fish. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) officially advise women who “may become pregnant, pregnantwomen, nursing mothers, and young children” to limit consumption certain fish andshellfish to 12 ounces a week, and to avoid shark,swordfish, king mackerel, and Tilefish completely. (Drat—I’vealways loved swordfish!)  EPA says that, and I quote: “By following these recommendations for selectingand eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive thebenefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they havereduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.”  In addiiton, each state has its own advisories about fish consumption as well.

Generally speaking, the fish to avoid are large predators.  Peak predators act as concentrators for bioaccumulative toxics: their bodies absorb the methylmercury from their prey, which, in turn,have absorbed methylmercury from living things lower on the foodchain.  And the bigger thepredator fish, the more fish it eats. Larger fish also tend to livelonger than smaller fish, so there’s simply more time for mercury tobuild up in their bodies.

But just as some fish contain high levels of mercury, others contain less.  Five of the most commonly eaten fish that areconsidered “low in mercury” are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon,pollock, and catfish. Albacore (“white”)tuna, another commonly eaten fish, has more mercury than canned light tuna. So when choosing yourtwo meals of fish and shellfish per week, the EPA/FDA recommendations suggest you limit yourself to up to 6 ounces (one average meal) ofalbacore tuna per week.

But how confident can you be, really, that fish are actually a healthy, safe food for you and your kids? Studies are mixed. Planck points to a few that indicate more fish isbetter. In 2005, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health announced that the government mercury warnings could cause pregnantwomen to eat too little fish to nourish her baby’s brain. In 2007, Joseph Hibbeln, an expert on omega-3 fats at the NationalInstitutes of Health, published a study of more than eleven thousandpregnant women near Bristol, England. The womenconsumed varying degrees of seafood each week: none at all, around therecommended portions, or more than 12 ounces (at least 3 servings aweek.) Researchers later assessed the women’s children, aged six monthsto eight years, for various measures of mental and social development.Even after accounting for about two dozen confounding factors—socialdisadvantage, perinatal health, diet, etc.—the children of women eatingless than two servings of fish per week had lower verbal, fine motor,and social skills than the children of the fish-eating mothers. Thelower the seafood intake, the higher the chances of poor development.Some health researchers have even begun to wonder whether fish oilsmight even protect against toxic methylmercury. Biologist Sandra Steingraber in her book Having Faith, An Ecologist’sJourney to Motherhood, on the other hand,cites a bunch of studies that strike fear in any mother-to-be. A studyin the Faroe Islands, for example, carried out by Danish researcherPhilippe Grandjean, looked at 1,022 babies born in 1986-87 to women whoate fish and high-mercury content whale meat while pregnant.When they were seven years old, the children were evaluated on theircognitive and motor skills. The results were sobering. Deficiencieswere found in memory, learning and attention that were proportional tothe level of mercury that had been recorded in their umbilical cordblood and maternal hair. “These children were not actually sick. Theywere just slower in solving riddles and other puzzles.” In the 1970s, agroup of mothers in Iraq unknowingly ate flour milled frommercury-dressed wheat. At high concentration levels of mercury, theirchildren developed progressive retardation and paralysis. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences released a report thatconcluded that each year in the United States, as many as 60,000children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems owing toprenatal exposure to mercury—these are kids that the report describedas “struggling to keep up in school and who might require remedialclasses or special education.” Steingraber points out that “Big Fish”—fisheries industry lobbiesequivalent to “Big Oil”—have stood side-by-side with utility companies to fight tighter standards for mercury. If this kind of pressure wins out, itmeans that levels of the metal could keep rising to the point where thechoice would be all too clear: forego brain-nurturing fish altogether.(As I mentioned recently, the US hastaken some baby steps towards curbing mercury pollution.) In my own deliberations, I’ve erred on the side of fish. Seafood issimply the best way to get the DHA my baby needs. Salmon is among thesafer seafood choices and it’s a personal favorite. A 3.5-ounce portionof wild sockeye salmon contains more than 1,200 milligrams of omega-3fats—and it’s a yummy delivery system. I’ve eaten it a couple times aweek during my pregnancy and now that I’m in the heavy-dutybrain-development stage (third trimester), I’m trying to eat even more.And even though every bite (while delicious) reminds me of the seriousconsequences I’m toying with, I will continue to do so when I startbreastfeeding.

That’s the gamble I’m taking with my own baby. I’ll also continue towork toward climate and energy policy that frees us from the shacklesof dirty energy—because the pollution from coal plants not onlythreatens the climate, but byproducts like mercury are also hurting all ourkids.

What’s your fish story? Did you eat fish during pregnancy? And how didyou sort out all the conflicting information? What can moms do toinsist on better standards for mercury pollution? 

Images courtesy: JG in SF and Manuel W,  Flickr.com.

This post originally appeared at Sightline’s Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

On talking to our kids about the future

Ask Umbra on sustainable manufacturing jobs, sexless fish, and matches

Mom-powered politics



]]> Editor’s Note: Anna wrote this post (and several others) before leaving on maternity leave. She gave birth to a healthy baby girl in December.

To eat fish, or not? If you’re pregnant, nursing, or even thinking about becoming pregnant, it’s a Catch-22. Seafood is the best possible source of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid DHA, which is critical for a baby’s brain and eye development, both in utero and in the “fourth trimester,” while the baby is nursing and the brain is still developing. But there’s a catch: seafood contains contaminants that can be harmful to babies—particularly methylmercury, which can harm the developing nervous system, causing subtle deficits in language, memory, motor skills, perception, and behavior.So for a pregnant woman, the decision whether to eat fish is now freighted with consequences.  Eat fish, and you’re putting your baby’s brain at risk of from toxic contaminants.  Skip fish, and you’re denying your baby’s brain of crucial nourishment. 

Pregnant and nursing women never asked to make this choice. 

Mercury is everywhere, even in the air we breathe.  It comes from a variety of sources, but the largest in the US are coal-fired power plants, which exhale elemental mercury in the fumes of coal smoke.  The mercury drifts around on air currents, and eventually settles into water bodies, where bacteria convertit into a far more troublesome form called methylmercury.  Methylmercury binds to protein,  and accumulates in every-higher concentrations at every step of the food chain.  It’s poison. It hurts babies’ brains. All fish contain some methylmercury, and some fish species contain enough that doctors recommend that expectant mothers avoid eating them completely.

And that’s a shame, since there’s s no better source of DHAs than fish.  DHAs build brain connectors while a baby’s body isdeveloping in the womb. 

So, there, in a nutshell, is the dilemma.  As a community, we’ve allowed one of the most healthful foods for pregnant mothers to become contaminated with a compound that can harm developing babies’ nervous systems.  We’ve given polluters free rein; but left thetough choices to women, and the hardships to the children they bringinto the world.

What’s the right choice for an expecting mother? Well, as a fisherman’s daughter, a former Puget Sound gillnetter myself, andproud resident of “Salmon Nation,” I believe in the power offish—particularly salmon—as a super food. And the more I read, the moreI believe it’s also super brain food. My favorite book about nutrition during pregnancy and early childhood,Nina Planck’s Real Food for Mother and Baby, goes so far as to say thatyour baby’s brain is “made of fish.”

But that decision—“Yes, I’ll eat fish”—prompts one question more:  How much fish is safe?

Well, it depends on the type of fish. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) officially advise women who “may become pregnant, pregnantwomen, nursing mothers, and young children” to limit consumption certain fish andshellfish to 12 ounces a week, and to avoid shark,swordfish, king mackerel, and Tilefish completely. (Drat—I’vealways loved swordfish!)  EPA says that, and I quote: “By following these recommendations for selectingand eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive thebenefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they havereduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.”  In addiiton, each state has its own advisories about fish consumption as well.

Generally speaking, the fish to avoid are large predators.  Peak predators act as concentrators for bioaccumulative toxics: their bodies absorb the methylmercury from their prey, which, in turn,have absorbed methylmercury from living things lower on the foodchain.  And the bigger thepredator fish, the more fish it eats. Larger fish also tend to livelonger than smaller fish, so there’s simply more time for mercury tobuild up in their bodies.

But just as some fish contain high levels of mercury, others contain less.  Five of the most commonly eaten fish that areconsidered “low in mercury” are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon,pollock, and catfish. Albacore (“white”)tuna, another commonly eaten fish, has more mercury than canned light tuna. So when choosing yourtwo meals of fish and shellfish per week, the EPA/FDA recommendations suggest you limit yourself to up to 6 ounces (one average meal) ofalbacore tuna per week.

But how confident can you be, really, that fish are actually a healthy, safe food for you and your kids? Studies are mixed. Planck points to a few that indicate more fish isbetter. In 2005, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health announced that the government mercury warnings could cause pregnantwomen to eat too little fish to nourish her baby’s brain. In 2007, Joseph Hibbeln, an expert on omega-3 fats at the NationalInstitutes of Health, published a study of more than eleven thousandpregnant women near Bristol, England. The womenconsumed varying degrees of seafood each week: none at all, around therecommended portions, or more than 12 ounces (at least 3 servings aweek.) Researchers later assessed the women’s children, aged six monthsto eight years, for various measures of mental and social development.Even after accounting for about two dozen confounding factors—socialdisadvantage, perinatal health, diet, etc.—the children of women eatingless than two servings of fish per week had lower verbal, fine motor,and social skills than the children of the fish-eating mothers. Thelower the seafood intake, the higher the chances of poor development.Some health researchers have even begun to wonder whether fish oilsmight even protect against toxic methylmercury. Biologist Sandra Steingraber in her book Having Faith, An Ecologist’sJourney to Motherhood, on the other hand,cites a bunch of studies that strike fear in any mother-to-be. A studyin the Faroe Islands, for example, carried out by Danish researcherPhilippe Grandjean, looked at 1,022 babies born in 1986-87 to women whoate fish and high-mercury content whale meat while pregnant.When they were seven years old, the children were evaluated on theircognitive and motor skills. The results were sobering. Deficiencieswere found in memory, learning and attention that were proportional tothe level of mercury that had been recorded in their umbilical cordblood and maternal hair. “These children were not actually sick. Theywere just slower in solving riddles and other puzzles.” In the 1970s, agroup of mothers in Iraq unknowingly ate flour milled frommercury-dressed wheat. At high concentration levels of mercury, theirchildren developed progressive retardation and paralysis. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences released a report thatconcluded that each year in the United States, as many as 60,000children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems owing toprenatal exposure to mercury—these are kids that the report describedas “struggling to keep up in school and who might require remedialclasses or special education.” Steingraber points out that “Big Fish”—fisheries industry lobbiesequivalent to “Big Oil”—have stood side-by-side with utility companies to fight tighter standards for mercury. If this kind of pressure wins out, itmeans that levels of the metal could keep rising to the point where thechoice would be all too clear: forego brain-nurturing fish altogether.(As I mentioned recently, the US hastaken some baby steps towards curbing mercury pollution.) In my own deliberations, I’ve erred on the side of fish. Seafood issimply the best way to get the DHA my baby needs. Salmon is among thesafer seafood choices and it’s a personal favorite. A 3.5-ounce portionof wild sockeye salmon contains more than 1,200 milligrams of omega-3fats—and it’s a yummy delivery system. I’ve eaten it a couple times aweek during my pregnancy and now that I’m in the heavy-dutybrain-development stage (third trimester), I’m trying to eat even more.And even though every bite (while delicious) reminds me of the seriousconsequences I’m toying with, I will continue to do so when I startbreastfeeding.

That’s the gamble I’m taking with my own baby. I’ll also continue towork toward climate and energy policy that frees us from the shacklesof dirty energy—because the pollution from coal plants not onlythreatens the climate, but byproducts like mercury are also hurting all ourkids.

What’s your fish story? Did you eat fish during pregnancy? And how didyou sort out all the conflicting information? What can moms do toinsist on better standards for mercury pollution? 

Images courtesy: JG in SF and Manuel W,  Flickr.com.

This post originally appeared at Sightline’s Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

On talking to our kids about the future

Ask Umbra on sustainable manufacturing jobs, sexless fish, and matches

Mom-powered politics



]]>