Friday, October 5, 2012

I Got a Beef With Beef

In my Future of Food posts I mentioned that we needed a new definition of sustainable where the food industry is concerned.  I decided, purposely, to avoid defining the word because I wanted to use various news stories to highlight how the system could be more sustainable and expand some of my thoughts from the previous posts.  I would not claim prophetic powers, but I must admit the events in Alberta did not completely come as a shock to me, and they shouldn't to you, either.  And so, I will exploit them, here, to expand on some of my earlier thoughts.

In a recent Globe and Mail commentary, Sylvain Charlebois wonders if Canadians will rally around the beef industry the way they did during the Mad Cow episode.  He believes that consumers are more interested in where their food is coming from and are more likely to ask about issues of safety and ethical production.  He notes that the cost of raising beef and the increased dollar have impacted the price of food and goes on to suggest that, with the economic downturn, this combination may be too much for Canadian consumers to ignore.  I think he is right.  I believe that the industry will pay for this in the short term, obviously, but also in the long term.  But, what Charlebois does not discuss is where the blame should be placed.

In the eyes of the Government the blame is undeniably NOT with them.  As another article in the Globe and Mail points out, George Da Pont claims the blame lies solely with XL Foods and that the delay in acting was due to delays in receiving reports from the company.  Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz insists that the government has hired more inspectors while the union claims that's not true and the opposition and press suggest that further cuts are imminent.  In the early stages of the crisis Ritz suggested it was no big deal because no one got sick, then some people went ahead and got sick.

If ever there was a time for consumers in Canada to express their displeasure with the current system through their wallets it would be now.  Clearly the government has decided that it no longer wishes to be the guardians of the public health.  While they can spin their employment numbers any way they want the bottom line is THEY are responsible for inspections.  I assume this means they make notes, fill out forms, etc.  If there are plenty of inspectors why were you waiting for information from the company?  Why were you not in possession of all the documents related to the testing, inspecting and recording?  Why did you have to be notified by inspectors from another country first? Is it because you don't actually do the testing, inspecting and recording but simply pop in for a check once in awhile?

It is easy to lay the blame at the feet of a nameless corporation and accuse them of greed.  But, is it not the very nature of corporations to look for maximum profit off minimum investment?  Is it not also the nature of corporations and humans to put their own good ahead of the good of others?  Anyone who would answer that last question with a no is a liar disingenuous and/or naive.  There is a true conflict of interest when a corporation is left to be their own compliance overseer.  That has always been what the role of government was to be; an arbitrator, rule maker, investigator and protector.  In return we all agree to be loyal, patriotic citizens.  But, corporations the government of Canada are not living up to their parts of the deal. Don't blame an institution dedicated to maximizing profits for behaving exactly as they were predicted to have behaved.

Bottom line: meat processing needs to be done in smaller, local abattoirs.  Limits need to be placed on the amount of market share any one plant can dominate (40% of all meat from one plant is unacceptable).  Inspectors need to be government employees with autonomous powers to shut down production whenever they suspect a threat to public health.  This cost needs to be born by the processors (yes, I know it means higher prices...so what?).  Cattle farms must come under inspection for conditions at the farm and adherence to ethical best practices.  All grain feed producers also need to come under inspection and be certified.  But, mostly, Canadians need to start a new relationship with their food.  We can start by eating less meat.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Imagine What Jeffrey Dahmer Would Have Sent

Ok, so apparently this is a thing now.  At face value the idea of a foodie pen pal exchanging food products sounds quite pastoral and all, but why put another human (all fallible and all) in the chain of supply.  Ok, I get that you are sending items that are not typically available where the other lives, but I see something bad happening out of this someday: accidental food poisoning, intentional poisoning, unexpected items packed with the food.  Maybe I am just a little paranoid and overly cynical about my fellow humans, I'll blame it on my parents insistence on throwing out any homemade treats at halloween.  Still, I'm going to go ahead and forgo this trend.  Thanks.

Additionally, I was thinking, if it's bad for the food industry to ship food all over the place, why is ok for individuals?  I thought we were all supposed to eat locally to save the earth.  I bet the kilometres per kilogram ratio is pretty high on this type of distribution.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

I've Got a Beef With Alberta Beef

...and not to mention the shit job the Canadian government is currently doing protecting consumers.  Here is a list of beef recalls from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.  To save you the time here is the TL;DR version: if you have bought beef anywhere take it back and ask for a refund.  Why trust the industry at all.  If you like you can read about the debacle herehere and here.  For me, I will be asking more questions at the butcher and asking for certified Ontario beef that has been processed in Ontario.  Cumbrae's has a nice shop.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Ontario Vintage 2012

I have been following quite a few of Ontario's wine makers and wineries on twitter for the past few months and now that the harvest has arrived, many have been very active tweeting about the success of this year's harvest, save for the odd rain day.  Almost without exception, these winemakers are excited about the quality and yields that they have experienced and they are all hinting that 2012 might be one of those great vintages for Ontario.

Just like pudding, the proof of the wine is in the tasting and so it will be exciting to read about, hear about and taste the first wines of this season.   I am especially looking forward to the Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays from Norman Hardie, Rosewood Estate, Rosehall Run, Featherstone, Megalomaniac, Daniel Lenko, Lacey Estates and Vineland.  And, of course, I will enjoy the odd case bottle of Riesling from all parts of Ontario.

In my opinion, the 2012 vintage might be the perfect storm for Ontario wines.  A year when not just the vines and soils have matured enough to demonstrate a character of their own, but also the maturing of the winemakers enough that they, too, finally define the character of their wines; the LCBO has finally started to promote Ontario wines more aggressively and without apology; The Wine Spectator has identified Ontario as "the world's least known great wine zone"; more Ontario wines are winning international competitions and being demanded in international restaurants and stores.  If the Ontario and Federal governments could pass legislation to make these wines more widely available in Canada and reduce the taxes to make them more affordable, Ontario wines could be as big a player as any in the world.

What I look forward to more than any other is seeing Ontario wines - and for that matter all Canadian wines - featured more prominently on wine lists, not just in fine restaurants but, in local pubs, taverns and eateries.  That would be the surest sign of success for our wine industry.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

PUT A CORK IN IT!

Researchers are taking a scientific look at the case of cork versus screw cap in wine bottles and I for one will be interested to see if there is any difference.  The one problem I see with the study, though, is it will be limited to one kind of wine and will not address the main issue of cork taint in wines stored for very long periods.

But, what really interests me about this story is the insight into the snobbery of wine enthusiasts.
At a recent tasting of luxury boutique wines on the Hawaiian island of Maui, John Conover, general manager of the PlumpJack Vineyard of Oakville, Calif., stood accused.
"A lady in the audience stood up and said, 'You're the one. … You're the one that bottles with screw caps,'" he recalls, noting his winery is proud to be experimenting with the closures.
"She said, 'You're taking the mystique out of wine.'"
I expect the findings to be along the lines of "inconclusive" "no significant difference" "more study needed"  blah blah blah.  But, even if they find that screw caps keep wine better, the wine "experts" will always demand cork.  Why? Because, the mere act of opening the bottle of wine gives them spotlight time.  "Oh, look at me. I know how to use this fancy cork screw!"  There is no other jargon in the world more over dressed than that of the oenophiles.  Wine does not have mystique any more than it has soul or magic.  Wine is a product that can be consumed and contains alcohol which causes an inebriation that humans - and some animals - find enjoyable.  This inebriation tends to lower inhibitions and "loosen lips" and this tends to make for memorable - and sometimes not so memorable - times with loved ones.  That isn't magic, it's predictable.


Sunday, September 16, 2012

The Future of Food - Final Thoughts

So we have travelled through time and have seen how farming has changed since Victorian days and the challenges that will face humanity in the near future.  As I have written this series, I have inserted several news stories into my blog about climate change and its effects on the food supply.  There has been no shortage of material, this season, concerning environmental impacts on that supply and I hope that you have all read those stories.  But, the question remains, "is the organic movement anything more than a marketing gimmick, or is it truly the inevitable future of food?"

Well, as it relates to human health and quality of products this story makes it clear that it may be more of the former and less of the latter.  But, one of the criticisms of the study quoted in the NPR story, is that the researchers did not look closely enough at the environmental impact of organic farming.  Proponents of organic farming have maintained that organic farming is a safer, more sustainable and less damaging method of farming.  While proponents of the conventional method maintain that organic farming on the scale its proponents suggest is just not a feasible way to produce the yields required to feed the future population on dwindling natural resources (i.e. land and water).  But, I think that both sides are taking an all or nothing approach to a complex issue and, after reading so much from both sides, I am inclined to fall in with Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak authors of Tomorrow's Table.

Ronald and Adamchak demonstrate that combining the best of organic farming (water preservation, soil conditioning, natural pest control, crop diversity) with proven technologies of modern, science driven, conventional farming yields the greatest returns in quality and quantity.  Ronald's work in plant genetics also teaches us that a changing climate need not result in famine for billions in underdeveloped worlds.  As Oxfam has said, drought is inevitable but famine is man-made.  And a look at the history of famine demonstrates that since the second world war all famines have been human driven.   But, organic farming alone is just as damaging to the environment as our modern methods as weed control through over tilling and the use of chemicals (yes I said chemicals! Whether natural or not a chemical is a chemical and is just as susceptible to over use).

In addition to famines, global warming has also been human driven.  And, the main motivation behind both has been greed.  The all out drive for money and power at all costs is at the heart of every failed human endeavour, whereas, when humans can set that motivation aside and do what is most beneficial to society regardless of immediate financial return, we have continually shown the ability to accomplish great things (eradication of disease, development of life saving therapies, sending space craft to every planet of the solar system and beyond to name a few).  We can do the same when it comes to surviving in a changing climate with a growing population but, our motivation needs to change from what it is right now.

Farming produce and livestock is an inherently damaging proposition for this planet that will only be mitigated by finding methods that limit that impact and provide the highest yields per square acre.  This means growing the right produce in the right places and finding humane ways to grow livestock on the smallest amount of land.   What is needed is a better definition of "sustainable".  For me, this means a reduction in the amount of corporate, industrial farming.  But, not necessarily organic methods.  The organic movement must deal with their own ecological damage before they can cast stones in the direction of others.  All farming is a trade off between what is healthy for the planet and what is healthy for a growing population.  And the issue we are really dancing around is whether or not there should be so many of our species on this planet.  That is an argument I am not willing to express an opinion on because I do not believe anyone has right to decide who should and should not continue to live, including the president of the United States.  To me, it is noble of the organic movement to be concerned with the well being of the planet.  I, too, am concerned about its well being, but I am also more concerned about the well being of the over 6 billion human inhabitants of the planet and the species that we share said planet with.  It would be nice if we could all have our own acre of land to cultivate our own personal Eden.  The fact is there is just not enough arable land available to do that without stripping more of the forest canopy and displacing more of the wildlife inhabiting those acres.  Humans are already the cause of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared 65-75 million years ago.  If we wish to avoid being the species responsible for its own extinction on top of the species we have already wiped out, it is time to look at new ways to restore the planet.

We already struggle to feed the world's population, even though it is estimated that the earth could support a nearly doubling of our population as it stands today.  Due to waste, greed and apathy, much of what we grow simply never gets to the people who need it most, while more of us continue to consume more than our fair share.  Much of the calories we consume come from non-essential products such as alcohol and candy.  A movement to convert vineyards to other crops might help.  Last time I checked this was not the trend.  Nor should it  be.  Look, I am not one to be lecturing anybody about their consumption, and I certainly am not prepared to give up a lifestyle which includes the occasional indulgence, so it seems to me the definition of sustainable must include practices that sustain lifestyle as much as sustenance.  For the amount of people that there are on this planet we could still - standing shoulder to shoulder - fit in an area about the size of Rhode Island.  Which is impractical but, illustrates the point that with some ingenuity we could find space for everyone without resorting to ripping out more trees.

We could use that same ingenuity to find new ways to grow food that must include all options.  But, in including all options, world governments need to be at the forefront of the change that will need to take place.  Greater control of research, stricter controls on pesticide and herbicide use (both organic and synthetic), better protection of farm workers, more stringent testing of all food in the system, greater controls on water usage, and a reduction in over tilling of agricultural land is urgently needed.  And, yet, in Canada the government is doing less (link, linklink).  Canada and the US could also follow India's lead and begin directly funding scientists for research into GE crops and remove the current patent laws that protect a company's claim to ownership.  The money for this could come from removing farm subsidies which end up in the pockets of investors and corporations rather than the farmers themselves.

As individuals, we all need to change our approach to food, as well.  For generations, humans have followed the natural rhythm of the seasons and ate accordingly.  The age of jet planes has eliminated the tilt of our planet and given us access to food in season on the opposite side of the world, which is great in times of drought or other natural disasters.  But, this has made us lazy about our eating.  We don't think about our food, our menus, or our food costs simply because food is perceived as cheap and plentiful and easily obtained.   This is what leads us to waste a staggering amount of the food we grow.  Becoming more familiar with what we eat and the real cost in time as well as money would go a long way to reducing waste and keeping costs down not to mention our weight.

We all have monetary concerns when it comes to our grocery shopping and feeding a family of four is not an easy task.  Nor is it made any easier by activist celebrity chefs who seem to forget that they live in a world that most people never have contact with.  The largest number of people in the world at the turn of the century had never even made a phone call let alone been given access to the internet.   The greatest number of people on the planet survive on less than $10 per day.  There are far more poor and "just-getting-bys" than there are potential customers of "Chez Payalots".  Asking people with shrinking incomes to spend more on trendy organic food when there is cheaper available is unreasonable and, from a health and safety perspective, unnecessary.  Organic foods do not, in and of themselves, provide a better food choice for most working class and poor people.  The lifestyle change that should be encouraged is one that deals with the waste side.

I think that environmental, economic and social pressures will cause a cultural change in our approach to food and I think that it will manifest itself as a return to our past while at the same time continuing to look forward to new technologies.  I think people will return to the idea of a "victory garden" - home gardening meant to decrease the pressure on our food industry first used during World Wars One and Two.  I believe canning and preserving will continue trending and will stick around.  I think we need to look at meat in the way Asian cooking does (and how Europeans used to) as a seasoning to a dish rather than the dish itself.  Four to six ounces of meat protein a day is all a typical male requires in his diet and yet, in the US alone, the average intake is about 9 ounces and that is before factoring in the over 200 eggs per year and the fifteen and a half pounds of fish per year.

Clearly a switch to a diet of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as grains and legumes will do plenty for your individual health. But, it will also do a great deal toward benefiting the planet's health and is a more important step than whether or not your food is grown organically, biodynamically or conventionally.  This change in diet, along with home gardening, canning and preserving and demanding your grocer carry a greater diversity of produce (we all remember the history of the banana I mentioned in an earlier post, right?) would do a lot more for the health of our planet and the sustainability of our food supply.  Educate yourself about chemicals (natural and synthetic) pesticides (natural and synthetic) the body's natural toxicity defences, DNA, food inspection laws, farming issues and water supplies and you will spend a lot less time worrying about how your food is marketed and more about what food choices you make.  I do buy organic foods, not because I am trying to make a political statement, but because some are just better.  I also buy conventionally grown products for the same reason.  Regardless of what I buy, in terms of produce, I wash; even when the package claims it has been pre-washed.  I admit that this may all seem difficult to do, so as a public service I will post stories, links and suggestions at regular intervals on this blog that will give you the resources to make better choices.  In the meantime, worry less, because that's healthier too.


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Toronto Beer Week 2012

Toronto Beer Week runs from September 14-22 and features tastings and events meant to highlight the many great craft beers available around Toronto.  For a list of participating breweries and pubs check out their website here.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

How's That Climate Treating You?

The Guardian has an interesting article that offers just one alternative for survival in an ever warming planet.   Vegetarianism is certainly something that many could, and possibly should, consider.  The article makes some valid points about food costs in water and the ability of our current system to addressing those costs.  Seventy percent increase in food production needed over then next 48 years, combined with a disappearing fresh water supply, and dwindling land availability does not make for a bright future as it stands now.

Some of the comments at the end of the article suggest that the melting polar caps will solve the water imbalance but, clearly these people have spent little time trying to get to either of the poles where travel is difficult even before considering trying to collect and transport unmelted ice.  You would have to harvest that ice because if you wait for it to melt, most will end up in the oceans and will be of limited use.  This does not even consider the fact that removing those ice caps will have even greater devastating effects on global warming.

The oceans themselves may hold the key to our water needs but, the technologies needed for desalination on a large enough scale have not been advanced enough.  The only immediate hope for the oceans providing more fresh water is through greater numbers of weather events that would disperse this water as part of the natural water cycle.  That would be a lot of weather events and of course soil erosion and flooding become the new issues.

The problem with the vegetarian solution, though, is that many of our vegetables that give us the healthiest nutritional values also require a lot of water, especially when grown in drier, less arable lands that most of the population will be forced to live.  The solution to this problem will require countries to actually engage in greater food trade to sustain populations and preserve lands for farming.  Sorry locavores.

It ain't easy living on a warming planet with a rapidly growing population.


WebRep
currentVote
noRating
noWeight

Sunday, August 26, 2012

The Future of Food - The Case For Science

It's fifty years into the future and and our population has passed the 9 billion mark.  Global warming has caused severe shortages of arable lands around the globe due to desertification and irrigation problems.  Growing populations and migration to the north are putting existing forests under greater strain as societies look for more land to clear for farming.  And, while the planet's land is surrounded by higher water levels, the supply of fresh water has been drastically reduced with most of it now being reserved for agricultural irrigation; in some nations, water for cleaning and bathing is unheard of.  New diseases are attacking existing crops and organic solutions are harder to find.  Oil is in short supply and must be rationed, which is easy enough as prices have made it a luxury item along with fresh fruits, vegetables and meat which are becoming scarcer due to their high irrigation demands.

But, perhaps the biggest issues facing society in fifty years will be the societal changes.  Human migration has resulted in conflicts between natives and migrants around the globe.  Food costs have skyrocketed and caused famine, rioting and civil wars.  Farms and grocery stores employ security to protect their commodities, further increasing the costs.  The world's richest nations are no longer the oil producers but, rather, the nations who can still produce food and water.

Will it really be this gloomy?  I believe it will if we don't take drastic steps to change the course we are currently on.  Organic farming, as much as I admire much of its elements, is simply not going to be able to feed more people on less land.  We have seen that in the example of Cuba.  It does not and will not provide better tasting food that is healthier.   Studies continue to demonstrate that.  And, it does not address the single most important issue facing agriculture in the next 50+ years: water.  While their practices can help preserve and even reduce water use, organic crops still need irrigating.  Add to that the required additional land simply for composting, the need for foods that can withstand long travel times (because, like it or not, locavores will become extinct or will be housing large numbers of migrants in their basements) and the constant threat of new diseases we have not even dreamed up yet and there is a recipe for catastrophe if we exclude science and engineering from the equation.

I would like to give you an example of organic farmers having to deal with threats to their very existence that could be helped by science:

Take the case of the subsistence farmers of Mizoram.  These farmers rely on their annual crop of rice, corn and wheat which in good years feeds their families and provides enough excess for sale to acquire some of the "luxuries" of life - like a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs.  For the most part, these farmers survive quite nicely as growing conditions are well suited for these crops and other grasses, such as bamboo.  But every 50 years or so and a quirk of nature occurs that, if you are unlucky enough to be farming in Mizoram or most of southeast Asia, may result in starvation for you and your family.

Before I discuss that quirk let me sing the praises of the humble bamboo plant.  Often called a super plant, there are over 1000 species of Bamboo ranging from simple ornamental to timber quality.  It is ubiquitous in southeast Asia and is used for scaffolding, housing, fuel, food and utensils.  It is a fast growing plant that was amongst the first plants found to regenerate after nuclear bombs were used.  They have a rhizome root structure which makes them ideal for quick cultivation.  And, they all fruit at exactly the same time every 48-50 years.  Even if you took a seedling to a different continent it would come to fruit at the same time as the parent plant.  A wonderful plant with innumerable uses all of which are renewable and sustainable.

The bad news, if you are a rice farmer in southeast Asia, is that the Black Rat knows all of this about the bamboo plant.  It also knows that, gram for gram, bamboo fruit provides some of the best nutritional and energy of any plant.  That is why the black rats have a breeding switch that becomes activated during the height of the bamboo flowering.  Now, this would seem not a big deal except that the qualities black rats are best known for are rapid breeding and ferocious appetites.  They can and will eat anything that grows and every fifty years that means bamboo fruit.  Normally the level of food availability keeps the rat population in check as females will breed less and even resort to eating their offspring when food supplies are low.  But the fruiting of bamboo is so great that it jumpstarts the breeding of the females who have a 21 day gestation period and a weening period of just 2 weeks.  An average female can pump out 200 offspring per year with half of them females ready to breed themselves in less than a couple of months.

Researchers have identified that the breeding cycle during the fruiting season comes in 4 pulses with the first coming at the first sign of bamboo flowers.  Each pulse denotes an additional generation of breeding females being added to the existing generation.  By the fourth pulse their numbers are astronomical and this comes when most of the fruit is already gone.  With their preferred food supply exhausted, the rats turn their voracious appetite to the wheat, corn and rice crops which have yet to ripen.  The rats can strip a field clean in less than a night, and if it is your field they strip, you can expect a lean winter. 

But, researchers have also found that when a rice, wheat or corn field is ready for harvest before that fourth pulse, the farmers can get their harvest in and the rats simply return to their cannibalistic ways.  So, what if science could engineer rice, wheat and corn plants that grew faster and were ready to harvest weeks earlier rather than synced with the bamboo fruit?  Shouldn't they, if it means staving off starvation for hundreds of thousands?  This threat is not limited to Mizoram, as the same phenomenon is present throughout Vietnam, Cambodia and most of southeast Asia.  Black rats have also been implicated in the spread of the Black Plague around the globe, so keeping their numbers in check might be beneficial to everyone. 

But, I hear you yelling at your screen right now "oh Dennis, what about frankenfoods, broccoli with eyes and tomatoes with still beating pigs' hearts?'  Let me put your addle mind at ease.  They don't and wouldn't exist!  Genetic modification is occurring at the level of DNA, which is identical in cells across species, it is not directly manipulating chromosomes for combining with another species' chromosome.  Our human superiority complex doesn't like to admit that we are no different a life form than any other life form, but we aren't.  Our DNA is exactly the same as that of a cockroach.  All that is different is how they combine to form bases and chromosomes.  When we find a cell that shows a preferred trait we can examine the DNA and identify how that DNA is expressed and use that expression in a cell of another species' chromosome to create the same trait in that species.  If we took the DNA expression for blue eyes out of a human cell and put it into a tomato cell, the tomato would not have blue eyes because tomatoes don't have eyes.  It's not in their chromosomes.  However, it might cause something else to turn blue for all I know, which would seem a pretty cool experiment from my perspective, but I digress.  Theoretically, yes, we could manipulate the DNA in just about anything to, with enough time, create a human from a tomato, but at that point it would no longer be a tomato and you probably wouldn't want to eat it.

Genetic modification is not an invention of the modern world, but has been practiced since the beginning of agriculture.  Selecting the genetic traits that we prefer has been something humans have done with vegetation as well as domesticated pets and farm animals.  If you enjoy broccoli, cauliflower, zucchini, carrots or nearly any produce you buy at the grocery store - organic or otherwise - you enjoy genetically modified foods.  All of those foods have had their genes manipulated through natural mutations which someone identified as preferential.  For proof of this look at your dog, then look at your neighbour's dog.  Advances in technology have simply allowed us to accomplish this in the lab much quicker. 

In addition, GMO foods are regulated.  Heavily.  And they must demonstrate that they are safe to consume as well as safe to grow.  Organic produce, on the other hand, is not regulated.  To date, not one instance of human illness has been associated with GMO products despite being in production since the seventies.  The same can not be said for organic produce

But, most importantly, GMO crops are saving lives!  Both Norman Borlaug and Pamela Ronald have demonstrated that science can provide answers to many of the problems facing a growing population without resorting to the natural and organic practices of the Black Rat.

If there is one knock against science that I am willing to concede it would be in the area of chemical pesticides.  But, even in this concession I have my reservations.  As with antibiotic use in farm animals, I believe the true issue with chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers has more to do with avarice and hubris than science.  Science can only help answer questions, it can not regulate human behavior.  Our desire to make as much money off as little investment as possible, and the arrogance of thinking we know better than anyone else combine to turn decent technologies into the environmental hazards many chemicals have become.  But, when used only when needed I believe these technologies can ensure safe, high yield, sustainable harvests for generations.  I also do not think that the organic movement is any less avaricious or hubristic.  This is human nature regardless of your calling in life.  I know from my own experience that asking a farmer if his products are organic, sustainable and local is no more of a guarantee than asking the 16 year old produce clerk at Loblaws. 

When we look at the most destructive technologies that have been introduced to society - lead in vehicles, CFC's in aerosols and refrigeration, DDT in pesticides - we see scientists at the forefront of exposing the damage those technologies have caused.  Science is an all encompassing discipline which includes the study of our environment.  It should not surprise anyone to see scientists working for activist organizations come from the same classrooms as those working for oil companies anymore than it would surprise them to find two Catholics at opposing sides.  So, for me, science must have an equal role in the production and distribution of a sustainable food supply as does the organic movement.  In my next post I will discuss how I think they can.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

A Prince of a County!

Combine an inability to sleep with a beautiful, sunny Saturday morning and a new car and you have the recipe for a road trip.  The only question is: to where?  Indulging a love for wine and a desire to try more products from Prince Edward County I soon found myself heading east toward what might arguably be Ontario's trendiest wine region.  My objective was to taste and purchase some of the fine Burgundian style Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays at Norman Hardie Wines that I have read so much about and maybe try one or two other small wineries.  So, with a minimal game plan and no previous knowledge of the area, off I went.

I found Norman Hardie's winery easily enough, but was kind of taken aback by the rustic look of the place.  A minimalist rusted iron sign and a gravel driveway greet you and lead you to the combination winery/cellar/retail outlet with the world's coolest wood burning oven and patio restaurant.  No need to book a tour, just wander around the premises and make yourself at home.  It is really that small and cozy.  In hindsight I should not have been surprised at the lack of window dressing and pretentiousness, since Hardie's wines lack the same.  Besides the wines, the retail store carries a number of gourmet products such as oils, vinegars and bread and even a book or two.   The young woman who served me was cheerful, knowledgable and personable.  

I tasted 4 wines: two Pinot Noir, one Chardonnay and one Riesling.

Norman Hardie 2010 County Pinot Noir Unfiltered, Norman Hardie 2009 Pinot Noir Cuvée L Unfiltered, Norman Hardie 2010 Chardonnay Unfiltered, Norman Hardie 2011 Riesling

Perhaps the biggest characteristic of Norman Hardie wines is its old world style.  The Pinot and Chards are mineral-y with ripe fruits and judicial use of oak.  Compared to the Pinot Noir and Chardonnay of Beamsville, these wines are distinctly their own and yet everything you would love about cold weather wines.  The winemaker's love of French wine is apparent in his own style; rich, warm wines that offer depth and complexity without losing their approachability.  Regardless of wine colour, these are wines you will want to enjoy with friends over a big platter of food.  Good food.  The kind of food you can eat with your hands.  Try the Riesling with some medium spicy samosas, the Chardonnay with a grilled butter drenched lobster tail and the Pinot Noir with burgers or pizza from a wood burning oven.  Mmmmm, pizza.  

Not knowing much about Prince Edward County and its wineries, I asked the staff at Norman Hardie for a couple of recommendations.  One was their neighbour at Rosehall Run Winery.  Rosehall's retail is in a contemporary concrete, steel and glass building with a beautiful little tasting room and retail store front and centre.  Their staff also greeted me like they had been waiting for me all week.  Friendly, knowledgable and helpful seems to be the character trait most sought after by wineries.  Also available at this retail shop is a selection of artisanal products from local businesses equally passionate about what they make.  I highly recommend you bring a little extra cash for some amazing mustards and cured meats.

At Rosehall, I tasted two Chardonnay, two Pinot Noir and one Cabernet Franc.

Rosehall Run Estate Bottled Chardonnay 2010, Rosehall Run Unoaked Chardonnay 2010, Rosehall Run Pinot Noir Rosehall Vineyard 2009, Rosehall Run Pinot Noir Cuvée County 2009, Rosehall Run Cuvée County Cabernet Franc 2010.

The set up of this tasting was brilliant with each of the lighter of the Chard and Pinot preceding the bolder version.  All of them were amazing wines that anyone would feel proud to serve their friends and family.  Very fruit forward would best describe these wines and you can tell that the winemaker's hand has a light touch allowing the grapes' natural characteristics to shine through.  This is strongly apparent with one of the best Cabernet Franc I have tasted.  Rosehall Run was a great find and will be added to my list of favourite wineries along with Norman Hardie.

I am not sure if it is an Ontario trait, a trait of the wine industry or simply my own bias toward anyone who brings me food and drink, but, as with my visit to Beamsville Bench, I found the people of Prince Edward County to be friendly, welcoming and extremely proud of their home and the wine and food industry.  If there is one distinction it would be that Prince Edward County seems even more laid back and casual.  You are never hurried and even the traffic seems calmer.  I think, though, to do it best one would need to find a bed and breakfast to stay at and make a weekend of it to see all there is to experience.

Nobody enjoys old world wines more than I do, and no one appreciates the generations of experience that are represented in their products.  But, as Ontarians we are lucky to have some great wines and, even more important, great people making Ontario a culinary destination.  There is no reason for any of us to apologize for making the statement that "Ontario wine is as good as any in the world."  And we should not hesitate to visit the wine regions of our province and enjoy the people and wines of those regions.  So get out and enjoy Prince Edward County.  And, if you don't mind, could you pick up a loaf of bread at Norman Hardie's for me while you are there?

Sunday, August 5, 2012

A Day At The Cardiologist

"Sit down Mr. Rutledge. Now, why are you here?"
" Um, because my doctor wanted your opinion on my ECG."

Don't these doctors read?

" I see. Could you get up on the table and take your shirt off, please." Listening to my chest and then: "You're a bit of a large one, aren't you?"

And so it begins.

"Yeah, I might be a few pounds over weight."
"Well, more than just a few."
"Yeah."
" Ok, you can get down and put your shirt on..."

 Here it comes.

"...ok Mr. Rutledge, having checked your test I would say that the thickening is probably normal due to your age and weight.  Have you given any thought to losing some of it?"

I wonder if this guy gets out of his office much.

"Yes.  I have considered it for most of the last 20 years or so."
"Well, maybe you should just start getting down to doing something about it."

God! I wish I'd thought of that!

"Well, doctor, it's not that I don't have the best intentions, but to be frank, I have probably lost the equivalent of your entire weight over those same 20 years only to keep putting it back on.  And, I am just sick of constantly thinking about every damn thing I put in my mouth, not to mention the hours wasted at the gym."
"Well, it does take a little bit of will power, but it can be done. If you cut out the white foods and limit your use of butter and sugar. I'm sure you think you are doing wonderful things by substituting olive oil for butter, but you really need to limit all your fats and ...blah, blah, blah..."

Is that a real diploma? Man, did I remember to pay MasterCard this month? I bet he paid more for his desk than I paid for my Smart Car.

"...for instance, if you just cut out the alcohol...let's do the math here...300 calories per...6-7...carry the one...yeah, there you go, the equivalent of about 15lbs ..."

Is this guy new?

"...and perhaps you could give some thought to walking a little each day?"

Really?

"Well, that's a great idea, doc.  How about, say...12 kilometres a day...and, I strap 30 pounds or so to my back just to build the intensity?"
"Well, don't get ahead of yourself, start with a 30 minute walk in the evening and..."
"Let me stop you there, doctor.  I'm a letter carrier, I am already doing the 12 K with the added weight. A stroll around the block won't even get me warmed up."
"Oh, I didn't realize..."
"Look, part of the issue is that my knee is arthritic and by the time I am home from work the last thing my legs want is more exercise, so I get comfortable on the couch and try not to eat."
"Well, you can't just make excuses.  You have to start losing some weight or one day your heart will just give up and that will be the end..."

Sounds perfect!

"...now look at me, I haven't had anything to eat since breakfast yesterday other than a cup of coffee this morning..."

Explains a lot.

"...and I'm not even hungry."
"Want to do that and try coming with me on my route in 35 celsius weather?"
"I know it's not practical for you to eat nothing, but maybe stay away from the starches and fats and try and get more vegetables and whole grains into you.  And you need to stop thinking about food all the time..."

What?!  Really?  That's possible?  Doctor, I do eat pretty nutritious food.  I eat a variety of foods, love veggies, fish, fruits.  I attempt to go meatless at least once a week.  I try very hard to limit my alcohol to just weekends and then to as little as possible.  But, no matter what I eat, I can tell you, I am probably going to eat more than I need to.  Please don't tell me that whole grains will make me feel fuller longer: they don't.  Nor does more protein; nor does more fat, dairy or any other suggested food type.  I am hungry immediately after eating.  I could eat you and on my way out of your office chow down on a small receptionist or two.  And, despite that constant hunger I do try to limit my consumption.  I think about food because I am constantly thinking about how much I just ate and how much more I should eat.

I think less about eating food, though, then I do about producing it, preparing it, serving it.  Food is not just something to fill my stomach; it is something that enhances moments together with friends.  Alcohol does the same, and loosens lips to open conversation and gives people the confidence to express opinions.  Food and drink do far more to bring family, friends and even communities closer together than maybe any other part of our culture.  Are rich foods and alcohol absolutely necessary?  Absolutely not!  But it sure makes this "life of quiet desperation" a little more bearable.

I am single and childless and my health affects no one other than me.  And, even if it didn't, so what?  Whether I am 50 or 150 when I die, I am sure there will be someone who will be a little sad to see me go.  But, loss is just as much a part of life as love, laughter and dancing.  Melancholy enhances merriment as much as food and drink; ever been to an Irish wake?

Look in your office, doctor, and see all those old (and I might add, skinny) men.  Watch them struggle to walk with their little walkers keeping them from falling over.  Listen to them talk about nothing but their health and illnesses and afflictions.  Look how their wives have to carry instructions and prescriptions in their purses for them everywhere they go so they remember their appointments and medications and, fuck, just to breath.  What do you think they think about?  They think about mortality and how soon it's going to come.  So, frankly, I would rather think about food and beer and wine and music and literature and life.  And, if you could arrange it, have the end come when I am least thinking about it.

"...so you will try and give a little thought to losing a few pounds?"
"Of course."
"And, I'll schedule you for a stress echo in a couple of weeks here at the office."

Of course.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Happy as a Clam

Speaking of bivalves, here is a story about a new old trend developing in the States that I would love to see migrate north.  I am not a fan of food trends, I feel if something is good it is always good, so I hope that some of these trends stick around.

As a bonus, here is a pretty good Wikipedia article all about bivalves.  Fascinating.

Is It Hot Enough for You Now?

Another story on the effects global warming will be having on the food industry.  And, while oysters may not seem like an important thing to worry about, keep in mind they play an important part in the ecology as well as the food chain.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

The Future of Food - The Problem of Organic

As you might recall in my initial post in this series I discussed the unique case of Cuba and the effects on the country's farming practices as a result of the collapse of the Soviet bloc.  At the time, Cuba's communist partners provided it with highly subsidized oil, fertilizer and grain that helped meet the dietary needs of its people while allowing Cuba's land to be used for its traditional crops and as a natural paradise for vacationing communists.  The Cuban diet at the time was heavy on breads, cereals, meats, dairy and sugar much like the majority of the industrialized world.  These were cheap staples that were grown throughout the communist world and easily transported.

Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Cuba has had to re-invent its agricultural identity.  With a lack of cheap oil for fertilizers and the running of farm equipment, Cuba turned to a more organic method of farming which saw them increase diversification and increase self sufficiency.  Cuba now grows 95% of its fruits and vegetables locally and the typical diet has diversified and contains far more fruits, vegetables and legumes.

However, this has not been the success that it at first glance appears.  The cost to the Cuban ecology has been a reduction in the forest canopy as trees were cleared to make room for more farm land and to allow greater sunshine to the crops.  Fruits and vegetables have become more expensive as a greater number of labourers has been required to maintain them, though in a strictly communist country this cost has been controlled.  And, with limited land and greater pressure to meet dietary needs, Cuba's agricultural industry has little stock left for exporting which leaves an already struggling economy even more depressed.

In addition to the ecological and environmental costs, and despite growing 95% of their fruits and vegetables, Cuban's must still import 50% of the food required to meet their needs.  While the country can meet the demands for fruit, vegetables and legumes, this does not give them their full protein requirements without the addition of grains which require more land than Cuba has available.  Chickens are the main source of meat protein for the country as land for grazing larger animals is scarce.  All of this has seen a drastic change in the Cuban diet with mixed results.

Cuba's experience teaches much about the organic movement, both positive and negative.  The positives are what was touched on in my last post, so I won't rehash it here.  The greatest negative is the  myth that everyone everywhere can eat local organic food year round and meet all our dietary needs.  This is just fantasy.  In Canada we face the prospect of long winters (even in our warming climate) and the scarcity of fresh produce in the winter would mean a depletion of vitamin C amongst other nutrients.  Of course, there are sources available locally for vitamin C, though I hope you like the taste of Pine.  Canning and preserving foods is certainly an option (and one I endorse) but the thought of another jar of preserved tomatoes for dinner around March is as appetizing for most as the thought of stewed pig's head.  Not to mention, canned and preserved foods do not retain their full nutritional content during the process and usually require added sugar and salt, which may not be advantageous considering our current health.

Cuba also teaches us that organic farming does nothing in the way of reducing the costs of farming to the environment.  Farming, whether industrial or organic, requires the clearance of forests and actually diminishes the biodiversity of the planet.  In Cuba, the reduction in forests is currently placing greater stress on species that are already under threat.  The same is true in parts of Africa and India where we see increased incidents of confrontation between wild life and humans.  In some parts of Africa one can make the argument that the wildlife is winning: i.e. the baboon problems in South Africa .

You might all notice that we have travelled through time during this series; Travelling to Cuba gives us a chance to travel back in time.  Cuba is stuck in a time prior to World War Two when the greatest changes in agriculture really came about.  They lack the machinery and the chemicals that the rest of the world has; and they lack the transportation and markets for their produce that others enjoy.  But, what really challenges the Cuban people is the location of their island in the middle of hurricane alley.  Despite all of their best efforts and intentions, Cubans could be thrust into further poverty and starvation should a damaging enough hurricane hit just before harvest time.  This could be even further catastrophic if it were to happen while the rest of the world's agriculture struggles with droughts, floods, hail etc., and their crops become unavailable for emergency relief.

The Organic Movement loves to time travel about as much as I do with one exception, they only travel backwards and only to a time prior to the 20th century.  In the minds of these proponents everything was much rosier and life was idyllic.  But this idea is also a myth.  Even the most advanced economies in the Victorian age had extreme levels of poverty, child and infant mortality, poorer health, and shortened life expectancy.  From a farming standpoint, drought, flood and other natural disasters were all that stood between the well fed and starvation.  Famine prior to the 20th century was caused primarily by natural disasters; since then most of the world has been famine free and when they do occur they are caused strictly by human activity.  Since the end of World War Two, human life expectancy has climbed year over year despite the damages of the industrial farms and the mistakes of agricultural science.

The organic movement is not without its hazards as well.  The largest food poisoning episode in Europe appears to have been caused by organic produce.  The culprit is E-coli and sequencing of the disease in bean sprouts identified that the problem is not just in the fertilizing stage but exists in the seeds themselves, whether grown organically or not (btw: do not eat raw bean sprouts ever).  Add to this episode the water contamination from manure in Walkerton, which may not have occurred on a certified organic farm but was certainly a method of fertilization that is acceptable in organic practice; the contamination of spinach on farms in California; and the poisoning of the poster boy of organic, Prince Charles' own brand of potato chips.

One last myth about organic is that local is better.  Again, under scrutiny this does not hold up.  As I said before, some places are not capable of growing some produce and even when they can the yields and quality may suffer.  The environmental benefits of locally grown may also be over estimated as researchers look at the efficiency of transportation in terms of cost per kilogram of food.  And if local, organic food is supposed to taste better then that argument, too, has some holes in it.

With no clear indication that organic is better tasting, better for you or, in some regards, better for the environment is there then a better solution and must we just throw out all of the ideas of the organic movement?  I hope to give you a chance to decide that for yourselves in the next post.

Friday, July 20, 2012

And The Winners Are...

A few days ago, the Lieutenant Governor's Award for Excellence in Ontario Wines winners list was announced.  So head on over to the LCBO and demand they get some for you.  My personal favourite is the 30 Bench Riesling, the Stoney Ridge Chardonnay and the Flat Rock Sparkling Brut.  Oddly enough, these are also the only ones I have had a chance to sample :)

A New Take On Corn Mazes

Let me know if these articles are depressing you.  Here is another story of the effect global warming is having on the food supply.  In this case, the poor corn crop will have an astounding impact on several consumer products, not just the corn itself.  Gas prices will be higher; milk and other dairy prices (which have already been climbing) will increase; beef, lamb, chicken and even pork will be more expensive.  In addition, other grains such as wheat, oats and barley will increase in price as farmers look to replace corn as their main winter feed.  As grains become scarcer in grocery stores, consumers will look to other staples to replace them, so expect increases in potatoes, rice and legumes.

These are the kinds of every day struggles humans will have to get used to in the uncertainty of a rapidly warming planet.  Mix in our ever expanding populations and our tenuous hold on civility could unravel as quickly as it has in the Arab and North African regions.  Our society needs a cultural make over; one that places less emphasis on the automobile, coal fired electricity, disposable everything and the belief that everything will always be there when we want it.  It seems to me that, in the story of the grasshopper and the ants, our generation has missed the moral.

Some of the ways to limit the impact of these uncertain times are already trendy amongst the hipster foodies, which is a shame because those trends always get lost when new ones take their place.  But, we need to start looking at food as less about pleasure and more about sustenance if we are to accomodate more of us.  The good news is, we can still find pleasure and enjoyment in this list:

1) Grow your own.  If you have access to some land that could be cleared and tilled and seeded you would do a lot to secure your food supply by planting a few basic crops to supplement your grocery list.  And it doesn't even take a lot of land to do it.
2) Share your seeds.  If you do start to grow your own food, the first thing you will notice is how expensive some seeds and seedlings can be.  But, learning to save your own seeds is easy enough and you can even trade with your friends and neighbours
3) Canning and Preserving.  This is where food and culture really meet.  Have a canning party; give preserves as gifts; exchange recipes.  It's fun for the whole family.  And, if you need a lesson, I will bet there is an Italian family within walking distance of you, if your live in Markham/Toronto/Anywhere, who would be happy to show you how easy it is.
4) Attend food swaps.  Here you can swap what you have too much of for items you are in need of.  Can't find a local swap?  Check our YYZ Food Swap on Facebook.

I hear you all saying that you can't fit that into your busy schedules.  Well, cut down on dinner parties and pot lucks and throw seed exchanges and food swaps instead.  Just as easy as a cookie swap at Christmas without all the annoying christians.  All of this, I am convinced, would be better for our health, our planet and our society.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Just When You Think A Corporation Gets It...

I was so excited about two recent decisions by McDonalds to become more open about their food and service and then I go and read the following item by Dr. Steve Mann Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass.  I don't have any information for Dr. Mann to assist in his attempt to seek redress with McDonalds, but if anyone knows how to get in touch with McDonalds of France maybe send him a message.  

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Is It Warm Enough For You Yet?

The CBC is back with another gloomy report about our changing environment, this time with a story about the Pacific Ocean acid levels.  Don't expect things to get much easier and do expect a rising cost for seafood.

'via Blog this'

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Hot Enough For You?

My first post in the Future of Food series outlined what the world might be like in 50 years when we reach nearly 10 billion people.  CBC is reporting on the impact that this year's weather is having on food production right  now.  Check out this MSN video - Rising cost of crops.  This will, of course, be good news for those whose corn crops are unaffected and for those who bet against the market, but overall bad news for those who have to feed their families in an already flat economy.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Now If They Would Just Give Me the Pizza Recipe

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.  The burger that has become an American classic, has been called by Federic Morin a recipe in perfect balance and is one of the few fast food items I admit to craving.  And now you can make it better by making it at home.  McDonald's has released a video of exactly what is in the "special sauce" and I for one applaud them for understanding that sharing recipes won't undermine your business but instead will build loyalty.



I did some experimenting to get the proportions right for you.  Oh, the sacrifices I make for you people.

3/4 Cup Mayo
1/4 Cup Relish
1 tsp each:
Yellow Mustard
Onion Powder
Garlic Powder
Paprika (plain, not smoked, not hot)
White Wine Vinegar

And now, if you will excuse me, I have some burgers to make.

Sunday, July 8, 2012

The Future of Food - The Case for Organic

Very shortly, Markham will join the ranks of the privileged few communities to welcome into theirs a Whole Foods Market.  The emblem of all things organic, sustainable and politically correct will be offering their brand of organic produce within a bicycle ride of my home.  It doesn't seem all that long ago that I recall Loblaws setting aside a small space in their produce section for organic items; they now have sections throughout the store.  And the movement is only just getting started, with just an estimated 2% of the share of the food market.  What is this new organic movement all about?

Hey, that trip we took into the future was fun, wasn't it?  How about another trip?  Into the past...say 150 or so years.  What did the world look like then and how was food prepared?  In the Victorian era there was simply food.  Farmers struggled to eek out a living on leased land hoping only to keep mother nature happy enough to let them bring their crops in without too much loss.  New technologies and some new fertilizers were available, but for most farmers around the world these were simply too costly for them to utilize.  Virtually all produce (vegetable and animal) was grown in a manner that most today would consider organic.  The need for a distinction between organic and conventional produce was non-existent, and the first supermarket was still about 50 years away.

With little in the way of synthetic chemicals available to farmers, finding the acceptable level of pests and invasive weeds meant constant monitoring and back-breaking manual labour.  The keys to success then are the same used in organic farming today: soil health and water preservation.  Organic farming attempts to identify the beneficial plants, insects and animals and use them to regulate the unwanted pests without the use of modern pesticides, seen as harmful.  Compost, crop rotation and manure are the chief forms of fertilizer used to eliminate synthetic forms also thought to be harmful.  And ground cover crops are the preferred manner of preserving moisture in the soil.  The ideal of a living garden is the driving philosophy and, when accomplished, the pride of every organic farmer.

And this form of farming has many beneficial properties depending on the level to which one is prepared to dedicate their farm.  One of the most serious problems that synthetic fertilizers have caused is the proliferation of invasive weeds and algae in our rivers, streams, lakes and oceans due to nitrogen run off.  This is causing many of our fresh water species to be choked out as they struggle to deal with these invasive species.  Organic farming looks to limit this run off by using natural sources of nitrogen that, in theory, should remain in the soil longer.

Another serious problem with a modern farm is the constant tilling and turning of large swaths of land causing serious soil erosion.  In the early part of the 20th century the US government commissioned a continuing study of soil erosion only to see erosion increase in the nearly 100 years since the office was formed.  Many organic methods help solve this issue, again in theory, by top dressing with compost and using a no-till method of farming in some areas.

The modern farm is one of speciality.  Growing large amounts of one or two crops allows the farmer to realize the greatest return on investment.  But, this use of land is inherently risky as all crops are susceptible to variations in weather and other environmental risks, i.e. insects and disease.  As we saw in Irish history, this kind of specialization can have deadly consequences.  The organic model, with its requirement of symbiosis, encourages a greater level of biodiversity which is not only a benefit to the environment and the farmer, but contributes to a greater variety in our diets which leads to a healthier lifestyle.

The pre-Victorian and early Victorian era farmer was not concerned with global warming and greenhouse gases.  The industrial revolution was in its infancy and green house gases were, while existent, not at the levels we have today.  Farming at this time was contributing little to the accumulation of these gases with most of it from clearing forests to make room for more farm land.  Motorized farm equipment had yet to be invented and the horse was still the main source of power on farms of the day.  Petroleum use was almost non-existent and the use of those products in production of fertilizers and pesticides had yet to be developed.  Organic farming, today, tries to replicate that environment and seeks to reduce the use of petroleum products in all aspects of production.  Many proponents advocate the scaling down of the typical farm.  And, on the small scale, the organic farm could accomplish some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

For a Victorian farmer, watering their crops meant waiting for rain or using the horse and their backs to haul large amounts of water to the fields.  The lack of motorized water pumps meant that water needed to be managed.  Part of that management included diverting rivers and streams into irrigation channels in the fields and the use of cover crops to ensure the moisture stayed in the ground.  Farmers at this time had as little concern about water shortages as they did about greenhouse gases, but the cost in manual labour to bring water to the fields was high enough to use water wisely.  Today's organic farmer is faced with more drought, less ground water, desertification and higher costs for water in some areas.  The motivation to preserve water is just as high and use of those traditional methods has helped to keep crops well irrigated.  As we inch toward 10 billion human population the preservation of water will become ever more critical to our survival.

Today's hipster foodies gorge themselves at the trendiest snout-to-hoof restaurants on everything from sweetbreads to liver to pig's foot.  In the Victorian era, the use of every scrap of an animal, and all everyday items for that matter, was a matter of survival.  The tastier, more tender parts of an animal were as preferred then as they are now, but staving off starvation meant brains, hearts, eyeballs, tongues and ears were as common as rib eyes and loins.  Bones were used for stocks and soups and then sold for turning into meal.  Fabric was re-used, recycled and the tiniest scraps were sent out for shod; the spinning of scraps into yarn (it's this practice that we get the word shoddy as a synonym for lesser quality items).  This "waste not want not" attitude is being resurrected by the organic movement as waste reduction becomes more critical and once again a matter of our survival.  Discouraging the use of plastics and disposables helps divert tons of waste that would otherwise end up in land fills where it would remain for eternity.

Where livestock is concerned, the organic movement demands a reduction in the use of antibiotics and growth hormone as well as a greater emphasis on more humane forms of farming.  Every attempt is made to provide livestock with a free ranging lifestyle that is thought to be less stressful.  Livestock are seen as part of the living farm, and their presence a vital cog in the farm machine, therefor, animals are to be treated with all due respect from the moment they are brought into the world until their inevitable departure.

In short, the organic farmer's goal is to build a living farm with a harmonic balance of respect for the land and animals, care for the soil and produce, preservation of the natural world and conservation of water and natural resources.  This is not a new philosophy, this is farming through most of human history.  Is it a form of food production that is sustainable and can it feed the 10 billion people that will be alive on the planet in 50 years?  While it was the method that fed the majority of the human family in  the past, will it be the answer to feeding the majority of them in the future?  Can it do the job without stripping even more natural habitat from other species already on the brink of extinction?  Will it help cool a planet whose warming is already out of control?

The answer to all those questions is yes and no.


Monday, July 2, 2012

How to Make a Salad

Came across this video from Jamie Oliver's Google+ feed and thought I would share it, because I think his salads are amazing and he gives great tips for keeping it simple.



Thursday, June 28, 2012

Inspirational Thought Of The Day

MBaI4.jpg (415×584):

'via Blog this'

I Told You So

I would  like to put the diet soda issue to bed once and for all, though I know there is not a chance of that.  Every time I decide to enjoy a diet soda it seems some health nazi is waiting in the shadows to pounce on me and lecture me on how bad it is for me and how it will make me fat.  I usually reply, firstly, that I am already fat and, secondly, fuck off.  That typically ends the conversation.

But, well meaning friends will usually not allow that to suffice and I then have to point out that moderate consumption of diet soda is in no way unsafe for my health.  And, further, that no study has ever proven that drinking diet soda CAUSES weight gain.  The studies that they have read about only suggest that people who prefer to drink diet coke have a problem with over eating.  In addition, the studies that suggest that aspartame may be harmful were conducted on mice who were given rather large amounts of the substance.  Give a mouse too much water and that will kill him too.

Now, NPR has a story about a study which suggests what I have always said, that people tend to see diet soda as an opportunity to cram even more calories by way of crap food into their faces.  The study looked, not just at weight gain and diet coke consumption, but at amount and quality of foods that participants ate.  And surprise!  The people with the most sensible diets had the least weight gain.

For me the matter is resolved and I will continue to enjoy the odd glass of diet soda as guilt free as ever.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Future of Food - Pt 1 The Challenge

Let's take a trip into the future.  You can stay right there on your couch or chair.  We aren't going far, only a scant 50 years or so.  In fact, we can start just 3 years from now and see what food challenges we might expect to face.  How about, greater economic pressure on poor regions to meet the rising cost of staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn.  As early as this time, experts expect a doubling in the food demand due to increased populations.  It was not so long ago that the population estimate was at 6 billion, it is now over 7 billion; 77,000 net population growth per day!  This will see a 40% increase in food costs for the wealthiest countries and will see 40 million more humans thrown into starvation in just 3 years, according to The Future of Food documentary.

Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant.  The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble).  With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.

Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth.  Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population.  As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration.  Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.

But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000).  Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history.  According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years.  Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season.  We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia.  Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels.  All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.

Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources.  Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants.  Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways.  As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation.  Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.

One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events.  Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year.  Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions.  Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations.  Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found.  Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people.  This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle.  Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.

In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers.  Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers:  more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system.  In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.

Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program.  The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels.  Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people.  As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west.  With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.

Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole.  With this wealth has come a growing middle class  and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins.  The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year.  India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising.  In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago.  The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport.  The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases.  With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.

So, seafood seems to be the answer, right?  Why not?  Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land.  Great.  Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed.  For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians.  Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums.  In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished.  The same can be said for European waters.  But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken.  The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights.  Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.

The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model.  China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land.  Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements.  New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.

The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store.  Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home.  The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise.  The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand.  Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.

But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem.  Take the case of the Cavendish Banana.  This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world.  In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana.   Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality.  But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana.  This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year.   It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor.  In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity.  It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today.  I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.

Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future.  We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions.  Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day.  With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them.  Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise?  If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years?  If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture?  How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?

That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources.  I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead.  But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do.  Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy.  With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise.  But what road should we take?