FOOD + POLITICS

Most of us who are concerned with what we eat are aware of the questions surrounding high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). At a minimum we are concerned with its presence in just about every processed food on the shelf. Take a minute and go to your pantry. Randomly select a couple of items and read the ingredients. It doesn't matter if what you are holding is cereal or salad dressing, chances are one, if not both, of those products lists HFCS among the first few ingredients.

Other concerns about HFCS surfaced January 26 when the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy issued a press release which stated: "Mercury was found in nearly 50 percent of tested samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), according to a new article published today in the scientific journal, Environmental Health. A separate study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) detected mercury in nearly one-third of 55 popular brand name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first or second highest labeled ingredient--including products by Quaker, Hershey's, Kraft and Smucker's."

Of course there were immediate denials from the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), which issued its own press release on February 3. And since then the CRA has launched a massive ad campaign trying to redirect the conversation about HFCS started in part by author Michael Pollan, In his book In Defense of Food, Pollan points out that HFCS may be cheap in the supermarket, but its environmental footprint is very expensive. Not only does the American diet consists of too much HFCS (up to 20% of the calories in a child's diet, says Pollan in a Sierra magazine interview), but the corn monoculture is literally killing our natural environment.

If you care about your diet, maybe there are reasons to avoid HFCS. What other alternatives do you have? Sugar seems to be an option. Sugar was the sweetener of choice for food processors before the introduction of HFCS, and some still use it. One recent issue with sugar among "natural" food enthusiasts was the introduction of a genetically modified (GM) sugar beet by Monsanto, which saw its first harvest this past fall.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine released a position paper warning that GM foods "pose a serious health risk" and should be avoided. And in light of the recent GM beet harvest, more than 70 companies have signed a pledge promising to avoid using sugar from genetically modified sugar beets "wherever possible."

Next up is the latest sweetener to get a provisional nod from the FDA: stevia. Stevia has long been recognized as a health supplement by the FDA, and used as a sweetener by many natural food enthusiasts, but it has only recently been given the government's "generally recognized as safe" label, which allows it to be used in foods and beverages. Many feel this only came about because of pressure from big players like Coke and Pepsi, who saw the market for a "natural" sweetener in light of consumer movement toward more natural and organic products. Whatever the reason, stevia is now appearing in some drinks and is available in little packets right alongside the more familiar low-calorie sweeteners used for decades by weight conscious consumers.

On August 28, 2008, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) issued a press release in which it announced it had sent a letter to the FDA urging more testing of stevia before it was cleared for use in food and drinks in the United States. The CSPI asked that introduction be held off until further studies be conducted in light of short-term indications of possible mutations and DNA damage with long-term use and/or high-dosages of stevia.

Stevia has been used in Japan since the 1970s. In fact, it is the only legal low-calorie sweetener in use in Japan, and has apparently caused no ill effects. Those who are concerned with ill effects in the U.S. point to Americans' over indulgence in diet soft drinks, suggesting that it is the amount of stevia we would consume that might cause unforeseen problems.

The bottom line is probably something like this: Steer clear of most processed foods containing HFCS and sugar. The jury is still out on stevia. Avoid all of the artificial sweeteners. Most of this is plain old common sense. If you can figure out what it is without having to consult a chemist, then it probably isn't going to kill you if you only indulge occasionally and in moderation. Maybe the sweet life isn't out of reach after all.

Fimmaker Robert Kenner has what looks to be a great new film about the food-industrial complex that I hope to be able to see this summer. It's been playing in selected cities since the middle of June, and will come to Indianapolis' Keystone Art Cinema on July 3. Whether or not I make it down there is up in the air. The chance of it ever making it to Muncie seems pretty slim. I hope I don't have to wait until it comes out on DVD, but chances are I will buy it either way.

The film is Food, Inc., and it features interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto) along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farms' Gary Hirshberg and Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin.

Visit the website for more on the film, the issues, and ways you can take action. It's an issue that affects all of us because we all have to eat.

I haven't posted to this site in a long time, but I think I might begin again. With the current economic situation, I have a lot to say about food and politics. And things aren't getting any better as far as the food-industrial complex is concerned. But for now, I want to just focus on the importance of being back in the dirt.

When I was out in our garden today, I got to thinking that what we do with a tiny city lot is kind of a miracle. That miracle came to into being because we wanted to eat fresh, organic produce and not spend a fortune to do so. At first we were trying to find produce at the Farmers' Market, and that was going okay, but we couldn't find everything we needed there, and often not enough of it at a reasonable price. After a while I found myself driving around the state looking for organic tomatoes to can, and I never did find organic fruit to put up for the winter. (In fact, we still drive up to Michigan to buy organic apples so we can make applesauce in the fall.)

The real story of how we ended up with four very productive raised beds in the middle of our yard, not to mention the addition of garden beds along the fence and sides of the house (leaving a much smaller yard to mow, but still enough grass for our dogs to play around a bit) is kind of sad in its own way. We signed up to be a part of a Community Sponsored Agriculture program--a CSA--with a local "farmer." I put "farmer" in quotation marks because this guy is more of a businessman who grows food. And that first year he didn't do a very good job of it.

Honestly, it wasn't as if we didn't know how this worked. We understood that if it was a bad year and he took a loss, then we might not get much; we understood that we could suffer right alongside him. But what he did was give us really measly bags of food and then sell beautiful things THAT WE DIDN'T GET at his farm stand at the Farmers' Market! We would get turnips and turnip greens (which he would call 2 items!) and then sell these gorgeous strawberries and heirloom tomatoes at the market! In fact, he would try to sell them to us!

Needless to say I was not pleased. Halfway through the summer I asked for a refund. He refused. I talked to others who were in the CSA and found out that most of them really didn't care that much because most of them were in it to support him, not for the food. They didn't even cook! My only recourse was to become a better farmer than he was.

One evening my husband and I sat in our back yard looking at the space we had to work with. I determined that if we removed the tree that sat in the middle of the yard, we could build a rather substantial garden in the space we had. By the end of the summer, the tree was gone and the beds were in. By the next summer we were growing much more food than we had gotten from the CSA. While the initial cost wasn't  insignificant (we had to pay to have the tree removed, we had to build the beds and amend the soil, buy some gardening supplies, etc.), over the years we have more than made it back. And the satisfaction we have from growing our own food is worth the initial cost and ongoing effort.

Just today we brought in strawberries, a gallon bucket of edible-pod peas, radishes, and several heads of lettuce. Last week we picked cherries from our small tree out front. The rhubarb keeps on coming. We have netting over our blueberry and blackberry bushes; those will be coming on soon. And the tomatoes and green peppers are looking good. Later on we will have a nice crop of a family heirloom horticulture bean (we call them Uncle Lloyd Beans--I don't know what they are really), zuchinni and summer squash, and fall crops of wax beans and beets. All this on a tiny city lot!

When people say they can't afford to eat food that is good for them, that they can't afford organic produce, I wonder what they think it is they can afford: poor health? reduced energy? chronic and/or fatal disease?

Nearly everyone can grow something. And the rewards in personal satisfaction and in health benefits are well worth the effort.

After spending the weekend putting out our garden, I was very interested when I came across an MSN Money article titled "5 foods it's cheaper to grow." I hoped that after all that backbreaking work I was doing the "right" thing financially!

It turns out that we do plant the Top Five, which are:

• Fruit trees
• Lettuce
• Herbs
• Vine plants
• Bell peppers

Of course we also plant some of those among the "5 to leave to the experts,":

• Potatoes
• Carrots
• Celery
• Asparagus
• Wheat

We do all of the Top Five. I know we save a lot of money on lettuce alone, and since my husband found a type of lettuce that is heat resistant, we pretty much have lettuce all summer long. Organic lettuce. Talk about saving money!

We also put in fruit trees a few years ago. We have two dwarf apple trees, two dwarf pear trees, several blueberry bushes, and a cherry tree. Last year there was a late freeze, so we got nothing from the trees, though we still got a few pints of blueberries. This year it appears we will get cherries for the first time, as well as many pears and apples. The thing with the apples is we do it all organic, so it really is a struggle (as mentioned in the MSN article). We refuse to spray them with pesticide, so we don't get many apples. That's just a fact. There are types of trees out there that are more pest resistant, but those aren't what we have--I don't think they are available in a dwarf variety and we live on a small, narrow city lot.

We also grow zucchini and summer squash--and we struggle to find ways to use it by September. We give it away when we can and we put it up for winter, but after a while, we just put in on the compost pile. It's that prolific!

And we finally can grow green peppers! For years we couldn't. Then we moved them from the garden to their own individual pots (far away from the garden just to be sure) and--ta da!--we had enough to put in the freezer for the winter. It was great to have them for stir fry and chili and other dishes during the cold months.

As for the "five to leave to the experts," I guess it is a matter of opinion. I think our carrots taste better and are more of a psychadelic orange than any other carrots (organic or conventional) I have bought at the grocery store. And it's fun to pull up a carrot from the garden.

We also put in two small asparagus beds two years ago. So this was the year we could harvest for the first time and we had more asparagus than we could eat! And they are tiny beds! I have to admit I would not spend that much money on asparagus at the store, so we more than got our money's worth.  

But we did try potatoes last year. For the space they take and the time and the cost--I have to agree, just buy them at the farmers' market. Not at all worth it. And I would never consider growing my own wheat--unless we do run into a serious food shortage. Then I might give it a shot. But that is another story (also on MSN Money).

The Food+Politics connection isn't "news" to me--or to a lot of other regular people who have been paying attention. I wrote in January of 2007 on "Global warming, ethanol, and the tortilla crisis," noting the connections between our refusal to change our energy habits and growing food crises around the globe. In March last year there was a lot of concern about rising milk prices, something I posted in "Got Milk? Well, you'll pay more for it."  

Now it appears people who should know more about such things, and care more about them, are starting to pay attention. People like the current federal administration. And people like the mainstream press corps. Here is part of the transcript from the May 22, 2008, U.S. Department of State daily press briefing with deputy spokesman Tom Casey:

QUESTION: Several countries have experienced food riots as a result of high prices. Can you just, in general, speak about whether or not the U.S. is concerned about the political implications for foreign governments of high food prices?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think our greatest concern is for the well-being of people who may be being squeezed out of their ability to feed themselves and their family because of high prices. And we are concerned about that. We've asked for and the Administration has asked for a substantial increase in our food assistance programs to be able to support those in need. You've seen us put additional money specifically into places like Haiti and some other countries where there have been serious problems caused by food shortages. And we're going to continue to do what we can to help alleviate those kinds of problems.

In terms of what the political implications of this are, look, I think there's any number of analysts out there that will be happy to talk to you about that issue. But from our perspective, the most important thing is dealing with the humanitarian needs of this. Obviously, every country in the world will have to determine its own agricultural policies and determine how any of these issues, along with things like rising energy prices, affect the kind of policies they adopt.

Yeah.

QUESTION: There's a theory that - sort of internationally that as the U.S. converts from foreign sources of energy and to ethanol that in this fight against terrorism that, in effect, that is having the effect of high prices of energy, of food internationally. What would you comment about that?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, I think you can talk to people at the Department of Energy and Agriculture, and the White House has commented on this, too. And that's something that, frankly, they're probably in a better position to address than I am. But I think if you look at the issues that are out there, we have some good news, and the good news comes with bad news. The good news is that in many parts of the world, their economies are developing and growing strongly and there's a growing demand worldwide. There's a growing population and there's a - and there are growing resources of people to be able to afford a variety of different commodities that they might not have in the past. And that places all kinds of demands on the world food market.

I'd also point out that rising energy costs do have a direct association with that since transportation of foods and foodstuffs is a large component of the ultimate price that consumers have to pay when something actually gets to their local market or to get it to their table. And the inputs that farmers have to use, whether that's fertilizer or gas products to run tractors or other equipment, inputs in terms of feeds and grains for livestock, are all the kinds of things that factor into the global price. Now, certainly, there is an impact that happens if people switch from one crop to another, and there's been a lot of reporting about some of the increased efforts to plant corn for use in production of ethanol here domestically. But I think if you look at the global agricultural market, the net impact of those relatively limited amounts of changes is pretty minor in terms of the overall picture.

QUESTION: Thanks. Just one last question.

MR. CASEY: You can try one more. I think you just about tapped me out on this one, but go ahead. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: In terms of the countries that are experiencing riots, do you think part of the reason to blame that is that perhaps on domestic policies of those countries or perhaps is it something in the international system which is led by the U.S.?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, there are differences in each situation and each country. There are some countries in which - are terribly poor and are suffering from a whole series of humanitarian problems that lead to food insecurity. Darfur would be a classic example of that. But there are other countries, certainly, where I'm sure individual national agricultural policies have played a role in where the price - where pricing structures are in that country and, you know, what kinds of access people may have to food or not. But again, individual countries have to be able to manage and respond to local circumstance in their own policies, and I don't want to try and, you know, provide advice to any individual country.

It is certainly important that the United States and that the international community, though, not just don't take note of the fact that there is a growing problem in terms of rising food costs, but that we all work together to see what we can do to deal not only with the short-term consequences of it, meaning the kinds of increased need for food aid that we've seen and that we're trying to respond to, but that we also look towards the long term of how to ensure that there is food security more broadly not only for our country but for the international system.

You can find the complete transcript here.  

I want to point out that, in the last paragraph, Mr. Casey says that it is important that "we all work together to see what we can do to deal not only with the short-term consequences" but that "we also look towards the long term of how to ensure that there is food security more broadly not only for our country but for the international system." If this attitude could be embraced by the administration and the American people it would go a long way toward alleviating not only the current food crisis but any number of other challenges facing us all--from energy needs to global warming to social justice.

It bears repeating: Think Globally, Act Locally.

Yes, we need to do what we can on a neighborhood, city, state, regional, national level. But any decisions we make need to be made with regard to our small place in the world--we are not the center of things, only a part of the global citizenry.

If you haven't read Food+Politics before, look through the older posts for more on what you can do to help out. Even one little act--eating less meat, not driving one day a week, composting your garbage--is one step closer to making things better.

And it appears that the People with Power (government and media--and not necessarily in that order) are starting to give a damn as well.   

The near-recession we are almost-in (since nobody officially wants to admit we are already ass-deep in alligators, I guess we'll keep swimming around the "R" word and just pretend everything is fine since we will soon be getting our tax "rebates") has started to have an impact on your grocery bill. Have you noticed yet?

A recent post at Grist, "Pay Rent and Eat Too?", pointed out some of the harsh realities of the current economic downturn, the harshest of which is that, over the past 20 years, Americans have gotten used to paying just 10% of their disposable income for food. That's a lot less than anyone else in the world. (For a great illustration of this, see Hungry Planet: What the World Eats, by Peter Menzel)  Now we're about to join the rest of the world in putting our money where our mouths (and stomachs) are. It's going to be a bitter pill (or bill) to swallow.

In an article quoted by Grist, Bill Lapp, President of Advanced Economic Solutions and former leading economist for ConAgra, noted that bread prices rose over 10% in 2007 and are likely to do at least that again this year. He added other food prices will also head higher as food manufacturers increasingly pass on the costs of high commodities to consumers. The good news, Lapp said, is that most U.S. consumers can afford to pay up, even if they won’t have much choice in the matter.

What nobody is mentioning is that at least part of the reason for the increase in food costs is the use of food crops in the production of ethanol. Corn being diverted to ethanol production is corn not being used to feed cows, meaning milk production is down, meaning the cost of milk is up. I've written about the milk/ethanol connection before and things are going from bad to worse.

The other rising costs are, of course, associated with the increase in the cost of fuel, which is why the big ethanol push. But as studies have shown, the energy gain from corn ethanol at this stage is minimal and the harm done to our environment and food supply is substantial. With rising fuel costs, we would have some increase in food costs anyway, but with the addition of the ethanol-imposed grain shortage there is an added sense of scarcity that is only adding to a looming food crisis worldwide.

Writing for the Earth Policy Institute in January, Lester R. Brown noted that corn meal prices are up 60% in Mexico and flour prices have doubled in Pakistan. Things have been looking bad in other countries for some time now, but as Lapp said, most U.S. consumers can afford to pay up. You know what? There are a lot of Americans who can't afford to "pay up," and even more people in the rest of the world who are going to starve if this keeps up. Not a pretty picture, but something we really need to think about.

I have been through Hell and back since I last posted. My dearest, best friend, the person who really seemed to get me the most (even more than my husband most of the time!) battled valiantly against a brain tumor all summer, fall, and winter.

We lost Carol on January 13, 2008. My life has changed in ways I never could have imagined. I will forever feel the loss. But, nearly 2 months since her death, one thing I am starting to realize is that she really embraced life. She appreciated every day, and it seems as if I dishonor her to sleepwalk through mine. So, in an effort to honor her memory in some small way, I am trying to regain some of the joy I lost when we got her diagnosis last May. 

Carol's tumor quickly made it difficult (then impossible) for her to do the things she most enjoyed--listening to music, reading and discussing books, discovering new foods and recipes. And I have realized that as she became incapable of enjoying these things, I grew to enjoy them less myself. I stopped listening to music, stopped reading, stopped thinking about food except as a necessity.

But I am now making an effort to reincorporate them back into my life. At first it was rather painful. They often remind me of Carol. I saw the movie Juno and began to cry at one point--not because of the movie itself but because it was just the sort of quirky, character-driven movie that Carol would have loved. Music will do that, too. And books. I often think, "I've got to tell Carol about this," only to quickly realize that that isn't going to happen.

Me & Carol July 2007

Still, I think for me the process of doing these things that we enjoyed and shared with one another is an important step in grieving and healing.

When I started this blog, Carol was very supportive and enthusiastic. She read it and commented on it and even told me she learned things from it. We both thought that reaching out and sharing information about food with others was a kind of social activism--what could be more basic and important than the food we eat?

This is my way of saying I am going to make an effort to revive Food + Politics. I hope I find some readers again. If not, it will just be an exercise in keeping my own hope for a brighter tomorrow alive.

Sometimes I come across something that makes my life a bit better. This morning it was The Daily Green. Subtitled "The Consumer's Guide to the Green Revolution," this website (currently in Beta and offering a "countdown to launch" clock in the upper right corner) is a great resource for anyone interested in issues ranging from recycling and global warming to local foods and vegetarian cooking.

The Weird Weather Watch is a photo blog of climate change that proves once again that a picture really is worth a thousand words. One Easy Thing offers eco tips that anyone can incorporate into their life and feel like they have at least done something to help the change the world for the better. New Green Cuisine promises "real food for real people." And the Blog Roll provides links to more than two dozen other eco websites/blogs for those who just can't get enough eco news and views.

As for what the site hope to accomplish, the publisher writes that The Daily Green is intended to be a "one-stop Web destination where the fast-growing community of green consumers can find each other and everything they need to know to embrace a more energy-conscious, natural foods-oriented and environment-friendly lifestyle."

The Daily Green is part of the Digital Media unit of Heart Magazines, but I'm not going to let the fact that it is part of a large corporation turn me off. There is more than enough here to love. With news updates, new recipes, surveys, contests, and who-knows-what around the corner, The Daily Green has now become a daily habit.

The Organic Consumers Association Tip of the Week is worth sharing here. I've written before about what a scourge plastic is on our health and on the environment (see Plastics and Precocious Puberty), but it doesn't hurt to reiterate. The Tip of the Week reads:

Although it's common knowledge that industry, factory farms, government agencies (especially the military), and municipalities are polluting our drinking water supply, this awareness has led to a widespread phobia of tap water that is ironically exacerbating the water pollution problem. It takes five times as much water to make the plastic bottle than the amount of water the bottle actually holds.

Last year, Americans consumed 1.5 million barrels of oil to make disposable water bottles. That's enough to take 100,000 cars off the road and 1 billion pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The average American adult spends nearly $200 each year on bottled water. And of course recent scientific studies indicate that hormone disrupting chemicals are steadily leaching out of those billions of non-recycled plastic water bottles that Coke and Pepsi are selling us, slowly and poisoning us.

The OCA provides a number of resources for finding out how safe your local water is, including this link to get a free report on the status of your municiple water supply.

Take a minute to figure out how you can stop contributing to the problem. Get a faucet-mounted filter, a stainless steel bottle for travel, a glass pitcher for the refrigerator, and quit buying pallets of bottled water out of convenience. Is (very little) convenience worth the real cost?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about how buying from the little companies is a lot like buying local. Today I want to promote a great local company that makes a product I can't seem to live without--chocolate.

Endangered Species Chocolate moved from Oregon to a new 43,000 square ft. LEED registered facility in Indianapolis in 2005. That makes them "local" to me. While the cacao for their products comes from Nigeria and the Dominican Republic, the chocolate itself is made right here in Indiana. And because the company is doing so much else right, I feel good about buying from them.

What else are they doing that makes me want to spend my money on their chocolate?  

For one thing, they aren't just out to make a buck. On its website, ESC notes that its cocoa is 100% ethically traded, adding, "ESC confirms that all of our chocolate is created from ethically traded, shade grown cacao grown on small family-owned properties that support the habitats and communities in which they exist." 

A lot of the chocolate on grocery shelves is cheap because it exploits child labor and ignores fair trade practices. Even organic chocolate and gourmet or "luxury" chocolate often have a dirty history. Knowing that your chocolate comes from a farmer who was paid a fair price for her or his work makes the treat taste even sweeter.  

Another thing I like is that 10% of the net profits from all sales are donated to support species, habitat, and humanity.

This year, the "species" being supported is the chimpanzee through Chimp Haven, a 200-acre Shreveport, Louisiana, sanctuary that provides lifetime care for chimpanzees no longer used for medical research, as pets, or entertainers.

The "habitat" is The Ocean Conservancy, an organization that promotes healthy and diverse ocean ecosystems and opposes practices that threaten ocean life and human life. The grant will be used to fund three projects: SEE Turtles: Sea turtle Ecotourism Expeditions, The International Coastal Cleanup and the Florida Wildlife Program.

Finally, as part of its "humanity" support, ESC will, in partnership with Saro Agro Science, award six scholarships to the top students in the Ikom region of Nigeria where ESC cacao is harvested. The money will be used to purchase school books, supplies and uniforms.

The company also supports the Indianapolis community by allowing employees to volunteer two hours per month during work hours. The website notes that this provides roughly 100 hours of community service to the city each month. Community outreach partners include The Peace Learning Center and The Humane Society of Indianapolis.

The core value of Endangered Species Chocolate is "Reverence for Life." The website notes this ethic is modeled after that of renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer. Showing respect for the earth, its creatures, and the people who live here might not be "business as usual," but for ESC it seems to be working.

Check out Endangered Species Chocolate at www.chocolatebar.com (don't you love that url?). The site has a great blog going, as well as information on the company. You can also order from there if you don't happen to live in Indiana.

What local companies are in your neighborhood? Post them here and we can all brag about the great, small companies we are finding in our quest to be more political about our food choices.