Though I might believe that we can combine the process of creating our meals with family leisure time and that these small projects can become common ground for communication, a better understanding and an exchange of love – it does take a certain degree of organization. 12-step Gourmet recipes may sell many cookbooks and cooking shows, but when cooking daily for a family, the work-results tradeoff just is not there.

Read Sierra Filucci’s story carefully as well as the comments posted by readers on the Sacramento News and Review’s site as well as here on the Utne Reader (who also reported the story). What do you think? Do you find that the pressures of modern life limit your capacity to invest the time or effort in your family’s nourishment? Do you believe that it’s simply a lack of organization or is it a waste of effort?

As sushi has become even more mainstream and popular, CBC World News reports that the U.N. proposes a ban on the fishing of the now nearly extinct bluefin tuna. The world organization proposes to put the large fish on the most-endangered species list. On the flipside, the New York Times this week covered the political pressure in Japan (consumers of over 80% of the bluefin catch) that would have them refuse to comply with such a ban. In fact as recently as early January, a large bluefin tuna fetched $177,000 at an auction in Tokyo.
On the positive side, Radio-Canada’s talk show “L’après-midi porte conseil” blogged about how many of the endangered fish species are disappearing from supermarket fish counters under public pressure. In fact, in an early February report, the non-profit organisation Fish-Wise explains how the large retailer Safeway has agreed to partner with Fish-Wise to provide its clients with more sustainable seafood.

As the consumers of these fish, we are each responsible for the overfishing that plagues the world’s fish populations as well as fresh and salt water ecosystems. Inform yourself, chose selectively and make your preferences known to our restaurateurs, grocers and fishmongers – together we will have a direct economic impact on fishing industry practices. Canadian readers can find information (as well as printable pocket references or iPhone apps which are very handy when doing groceries) on sustainable and low-toxicity fish choices at www.seachoice.org, while Amercian consumers can find similar references at the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s site (for the West Coast) and the Environmental Defence Fund’s page. If you are a pet owner who feeds your pets commercial (even high end) pet food – take the time to write or email the pet food manufacturers to make your preferences known. Those who take fish oil supplements or give them to their kids should do the same – inform yourself about what fisheries the oils come from and put pressure on manufacturers to use fish products from sustainable sources. The phrase “together we can make a difference” is overused in such collective action – but in cases such as this we are the difference! The same market forces which brought us this problem can be used to correct it. Vote with your pocketbook, credit or debit cards and the market will follow.

Stats (standard chicken on the left / organic chicken on the right):
Fat after cooking: 18mm / 3mm;
Raw Weight: 1.7kg / 2.7kg;
Price: about 8$/19$

His conclusion: “At the end of cooking, there was almost twice as much meat from the organic chicken and SIX times more fat from the “regular” chicken with a lot more water content. As for the price, I would like to redo the experiement and weigh the chickens before and after the cooking (without the bones) to get a real price per KG of meat.”
Thanks Dan![/lang-en]

Proponents of organic agriculture often cite the less intensive use of chemicals in organic production as a warrant of its safety and while it’s true that organic methods generally use less chemicals that industrial agriculture – that fact does not by itself guarantee that these “natural” chemical inputs are safer. Often our obsession to avoid synthetic chemicals overlooks the fact that most of the toxic chemicals to which we are exposed are completely natural. There are practically no differences in health outcomes between exposure to natural or synthetic toxins. According to an article in the prestigious journal Science researchers have shown that, according to toxicity studies in rodents, a glass of wine, a glass of orange juice and a cup of coffee have a higher “potency index” than synthetic pesticides lindane and captan. Hervé This, physical chemist at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique in Paris and well known teacher and author on the subject of Molecular Gastronomy believes that many people do not behave rationally when it comes to diet. While people get up in arms about pesticides and rare contamination of food by toxins, Hervé This notes that no one makes a fuss about consuming considerable quantities of grilled meats which contain proven carcinogenic molecules such as benzopyrenes which are deposited by the smoke. He also observes that though consumers and chefs alike are concerned about toxins in food they nonchalantly add such elements as tarragon, bay leaf and nutmeg to recipes, unaware that these contain extremely toxic molecules (the toxins in one nutmeg berry ground to a powder can kill an adult). Hervé This cites the Renaissance physician, botanist, alchemist and astrologer Paracelsus on this matter when he says :

“Alle Ding’ sind Gift, und nichts ohn’ Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.”
“All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”

Organic agriculture has now become BIG business, with sales in the billions of dollars in North America alone. It has built its very marketable reputation on a commonly held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. However, as James E McWilliams makes reference to in his chapter on the Organic Panic, since pests often consume over 40 percent of crops grown in the United States, farmers – organic or not – have no choice but to rely on chemicals as a matter of course to control these pests. Even if the substances used are labelled as “botanical extracts” or “biorationals” – this does not make these toxins less dangerous. Even if many of these “natural” products have been used for decades and in some cases hundred of years in traditional, small scale agriculture; the scaling up of commercialized organic agriculture could quickly bring about serious health and environmental problems similar to those seen with synthetic crop aids if these natural toxins are used irresponsibly or on too large a scale. For a balanced and detailed examination of the issues facing organic and convential food production, read McWilliams’ excellent book Just Food.

What strategies can we use to maximise the benefits of our diet while reducing the risks? A few simple tactics are available to us. Firstly, by increasing the variety of food species that we include in our diets we can accomplish two things – we can reduce the pressure applied commercial agriculture to increase monoculture, an agricultural method that often leads to increased reliance on chemical inputs; we can also reduce the doses of any single toxic chemical in our diet, whether from the fertilizers pesticides, fungicide or herbicides or from the toxins in the foods themselves. Secondly we can push our food producers to take a more pro-active and responsible approach to food production by becoming more active participants in the food cycle; by buying more food in-season from small local producers who accept to account for their chemical use; by buying more organic produce from responsible small-scale producers who respect the philosophy of responsible agriculture; and by shortening the chain of food production between the primary producer and the plate. For those who cannot afford to switch to 100% organic and responsible food production – you can switch where it makes the most difference for your family and the environment, by avoiding crops that are the most heavily chemical-laden and contaminated. Use references like the Environmental Working Group’s Shoppers’ Guide to Pesticides to find out which non-organic crops are OK. Vote for a healthier environement and safer food with your debit card and your fork.

In 2008, the Canadian government announced regulatory changes to the Food and Drugs Act and the Canadian Agricultural Products Act that would come into effect on December 14, 2008 significantly changing the way cheeses were sold in Canada. The regulations would require cheese makers to strictly limit the use of natural constituents of milk, frequently referred to as modified milk, or dairy ingredients. These regulations were meant to protect the percentage of fresh Canadian milk used in the production of Canadian cheese.

October 20th 2008, in anticipation of the regulatory changes, Kraft Canada Inc., Parmalat Canada Inc.and Saputo Inc. (KPS) jointly filed an Application in the Federal Court of Canada challenging these new regulations. They alleged that the regulations would cost more to the consumer and cause injury to the industry as a whole as consumers would buy less of the now more expensive cheese and in the words of KPS spokesperson Yvan Loubier “threaten the viability of Canada as a cheese making nation.”

Over the past several years through a series of subtle modifications to the Canadian milk quota and tariff system, major dairy processors have eroded the protective legislative framework which ensured that Canadian dairy products were made from Canadian milk. Ingredients labelled “milk constituents”, “milk protein”, “whey protein concentrate”, and other milk derivatives other than milk were imported from countries with looser dairy agriculture regulations than those of Canada’s (e.g. Brazil, USA, China), thus limiting public oversight of such practices as dairy cattle treatment with hormones, humane farm practices.

In their initial October ruling, the Federal Court of Canada upheld the newer stronger ammendments to the Food and Drugs Act and the Canadian Agricultural Products Act. In November 2009, Saputo and Kraft came back on the attack – appealing the ruling that would require cheese producers to use more full-fat milk and less milk solids. Again, they argue that consumers, dairy farmers and cheese producers would benefit from a freer market. In other countries where agricutural protections have been relaxed – farmers and consumers have been clear losers (to the benefit of the multinationals). For example, the European Court of Auditors in an October 2009 report found that between 2000 and 2007, when the EU began relaxing quota regulations, the producer price fell six per cent, while consumer prices increased by 17 per cent. It’s up to us to support the creation of a fair and equitable market that benefits both consumers and primary producers. When your local politician comes visiting looking for your votes – ask him or her what they intend to do to help protect our farmers and our food markets from the gouging of multinationals. Get involved and choose to buy your products from small local producers or direct from the farm whenever possible. Protect your own food security.

This pharmacological breakthrough will most probably be tested on humans and if approved will become the next fat loss “magic pill”. We have seen hundreds, if not thousands of different “magic pill” approaches to weight control and not one has truly worked. Either they have compromised the health of those attempting the treatments or they have simply failed. We should ask ourselves why so many seemingly logical and well meaning approaches fail (not to mention the purely exploitative snake-oil treatments).

In seeking to better understand the question of weight gain, S. W. Keith et his team in a 2006 research article in the International Journal of Obesity, explain ten important contributors to increasing rates of obesity besides the usual “Big Two” (increased prevalence of processed and sugar-laden foods and reduced physical activity) – they cite such factors as sleep deprivation, the increase in environmental endocrine disruptors and even the decreased rate of smoking in North American Society as reasons for increasing levels of obesity. This research helps illustrate that weight gain or loss are not simple, single factor issues.

Since several lifestyle factors affect physical well-being and body composition, creating change takes a holistic and individualized approach. When you want to create a lasting change – a pill or a diet will simply not do the trick. You have to learn from others who have successfully walked the walk. Just like apprenticeship programs teach young tradespeople the ins and outs of their craft much better than any theoretical textbook ever can – learning from someone with a proven track record is the way to go. A 2007 study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine indicating how obesity may be a social phenomenon was widely reported in the mainstream media. While the study showed how obesity can spread through social networks, it also indirectly highlighted how association with more active or leaner individuals can also shift lifestyle balance away from obesity. Such is the power of walking the walk. If you spend more of your time with someone who eats well, who is active and who enjoys his or her life – chances are good that you will learn from them and that you too will spend more of your time eating well, being more active and enjoying your life.

Or, you can always try some snake oil – I hear it works wonders…

(thanks to Dr Yoni Freedhoff of the great Weighty Matters blog for the heads-up on the hysterical eBay link)

In a study published in 2004 Timothy Jones, anthropologist at the University of Arizona Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, estimates that the waste in the American food industry is as high as 40%. – amounts resulting in a staggering $45 billion annual loss. In their study of consumer food practices – Dr Jones and his team have found that families throw out approximately 14% of the food that they buy – 15% of this food was in its original package and disposed of earlier than the “best before” date. Simultaneously, 90% of families surveyed said they wasted little or none of the food that they purchased.

In a 2009 study, U.S. National Institutes of Health found that the U.S. wastes 150 trillion kilocalories a year. Those figures concur with Dr Jones’ research, showing that about 40 percent of the United States food supply ends up filling our landfills (up from 28 percent in 1974). Besides the obvious squandering of food, these wasted calories have a serous environmental impact. More than 25% of America’s consumption of freshwater and about 300 million barrels of oil a year are used to produce the wasted food, which simply ends up producing a whole lot of methane (a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) when all this food rots away in landfill sites.

Kevin Hall and his colleagues at the U.S. National Institutes of Health reported that food waste in the U.S. increased by about 50 per cent since 1974. Concurrently the USDA revealed that it took only 5.6 percent of income to feed an average family of four in 2009 – the lowest share since 1929. The lower perceived or monetary value of food is certainly one of the major contributing factors to its waste, as consumers become less frugal, plan less carefully and waste more when food budgets eat up a smaller portion of total income.

As the food industry pushes for ever lower food prices – farmers are often forced to abandon crops in the field (a practice known as walk-by or plow-under), as harvesting the same crops will cost the farmer more than the crop is worth. Dr Timothy Jones’ research at the University of Arizona demonstrated that among others; 350 000 tons of leaf lettuce, 130 000 tons of broccoli, 40 000 tons of carrots, and 50 000 tons of cauliflower are lost on the farm each year in the U.S. – 50% of which are plow-under losses.

In Great Britain, a study by the Waste and Resources Action Program, or WRAP — a group created by the British government to investigate waste and packaging — found Britain’s food waste amounts to an estimated 6.6 million tons per year. According to Britain’s Food Climate Research Network food production, distribution and storage account for nearly 20 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. “If we stopped wasting food that could have been eaten, we could prevent at least 15 million tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions each year,” WRAP’s report concluded. “The majority of these emissions are associated with embedded energy, but a significant proportion arises as a result of food waste going to landfill sites.”

The WRAP study highlighted the fact that households throw out up to 20% of the food they buy while it is still fit to eat – dairy and eggs are at the top of the list (15 %), followed by bread and veggies (13 %), meat products (12 %) and prepared meals and foods (9 %).

According to scientists at the Institute of Waste Management at the Agricultural University of Vienna, European consumers toss out €100 worth of food per person each year – the equivalent of 240kg (3 times the weight of the average adult male). As seen in both British and American stuydies – many food products leave the grocery only to end up in the trash with their wrapping intact. The same wasteful habits plague the food industry – with bakeries baking bread right up until closing time. This results in waste on such a scale that the bread wasted in the city of Vienna (population of about 1.7 million) could fill the needs of a medium sized city like Graz (population of about 300 000).

Supermarkets are also serious offenders. As competition between supermarkets has habituated consumers to buying only blemish-free and perfect produce, supermarket have started throwing out perfectly edible foods for the most superficial of reasons. Damaged packages, slightly blemished fruits and veggies, day-old bakery products, nearing best-before dates and product lines that have been withdrawn all end up in the garbage bins. Average sized groceries in Europe (much smaller than our standard North-American supermarket) throw out 45kg of perfectly edible food each day. The most common items are fruits and vegetables, followed by eggs, cheese and meat. Experts estimate that at least 25% of the products thrown out are still good to eat.

References

Green Inc.: Study Analyzes Food Waste in Britain
By PETE BROWNE
Published: November 10, 2009
A new report suggests that British consumers unnecessarily discard $20 billion worth of food and drink every year.

A hill of beans
Nov 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Le gaspillage de denrées alimentaires se poursuit
Canoë
11/11/2008 14h25

Gaspillage des denrées alimentaires
Mettons fin au gâchis
Environnement
10.11.2008

Note

CBC radio’s current affairs program The Current, in it’s ongoing series Diet for a Hungry Planet has put together several very interesting reports on food issues, including this report on food waste.